Paul Polman | Venice Climate Week 2026

So lots of luck, and having Sarah behind you or Christiana or Ricardo, I think you'll have good support. And may the Paris— the Paris, I'm saying the Paris Agreement, but may the climate week— No, I don't need this. The Venice Climate Week, it's amazing to see how this has grown and how important it is. I actually just came back this morning. I flew in from Denmark. I was in the south of Sweden. We have created a Food Planet Prize, which is the biggest prize now that is being given to the best ideas that revolutionize our food system. As you well know, a system that's pretty broken. But I left fairly encouraged to see what actually happens on the ground by people when they get together, the willpower in an environment sometimes that's not so easy. The winner This time was Andhra Pradesh in India, where people are working to get 8 million, basically women actually, smallholder farmers to move to regenerative agriculture. If you then see the impact on livelihoods, on use of our scarce resources, on regenerating the land, it makes you hopeful. I used to think that you need a lot of optimism and hope to get people into action, but The more I'm around, I actually see how action galvanizes that hope itself. There is so much going on, and I'm sure in the last few days that you've been here at the Climate Week in Venice, you get that same idea from the amazing people that are talking. The thing I wanted to briefly talk about is perhaps sketch a little bit of where we are and how we see this world, because it's hard to predict and it's certainly not a tidy world. You know, you had actually an Italian that lived around the 1900s. He died in, I think, 1935, more or less. And you might have heard him, Antonio Gramsci, a philosopher, politician, probably from a different orientation than what we need today. But he said something that actually is becoming much more relevant as we're facing a future that actually is not so tidy. and a change process that is going to be difficult. The tensions that you see today and the pressures that are there will be with us for a while in the transitions that we need to make from the old system to the new system. There's a vacuum when that happens, and I think we're in the middle of that vacuum. Interestingly, when he wrote about it from his prison cell, it was actually— he said the old system is dying and the new world struggles to be born. And that's a little bit where we're in. We're struggling to create something that is really new. And when that happens, he said, you get morbid symptoms, which are really a little bit interpreted in modern days that that's when there's time for monsters. And I hope you agree with me that in some places in the world, we're starting to see these monsters emerge, and we need to be mindful of that. But, you know, we've done— and this was by the time just after World War I, when also the political system wasn't working, when the economic system wasn't working. when many people were wondering, you know, what is this new system that is coming out of it? We didn't figure it out then and ended up with World War II, if I may be a slight historian. Now we have an opportunity to do it slightly better. But think about it. For the last 50 years, we've been fairly lucky. We didn't really have to do much to create enormous economic progress in this world, lift enormous amounts of people out of poverty. And doing that actually in a way that globalization gave us more opportunities. There's no question about that. The global political frameworks that we put in place during Bretton Woods have been really functional to make us work together, a normative-based system that we broadly accepted. We also didn't have to deal with the scarce resources that are now limiting our growth. These planetary boundaries simply weren't there. So lo and behold, we've lifted quite a lot of people out of poverty. If you just look at the last 2 and a half decades alone, about 500 million people in China alone. The Millennial Development Goals, which we developed from the year 2000 to 2015, had a very simple objective: to halve the number of people in poverty. And we have achieved that. We have achieved that by far. Actually, we achieved that well below the 15-year timeline that we set at this time. So we shouldn't dwell too much on the past, on what was good or what was bad. We should actually be grateful that we had it. But we've also learned a lot. We've learned that our, you know, that we can't have infinite growth on a finite planet. We've learned that our overdependence in our economic growth depending on fossil fuel is not anymore the smartest thing to do. We've also learned that if we have economic systems where we don't include everybody, then ultimately we will see a certain level of rebellion. You know, I've always said that any system where too many people feel they're not participating or ultimately being excluded will rebel against itself. And I think we're at that moment now. So it's time to create something new. It's time to create something better. You know, I was— when the financial crisis came, some of you probably weren't even born then, but when the financial crisis came in 2008, it was very clear to me that we were pretty messed up in our economic system. At that time, believe it or not, I was the CFO of Nestlé, but I was looking at some data from the US and about 45% of the corporate profits were coming from the financial world. It just didn't make sense. With this liberalization that we had seen in the '90s and early parts of this century, we had created financial instruments that were 2 to 3 times bigger than the real economy. and all trying to chase returns. We really had become victims of the financial market, which originally, as you well know, I don't have to tell you that, was designed to serve the economy. All of a sudden, we found ourselves serving them. And people that suffered— what started in the US became a global crisis, certainly here in Europe as well, this financial crisis where we spent trillions of dollars to bail out the banks, but frankly, nobody went to jail. Where many people lost their pensions and other things, the people started to feel, you know, banks are too big to matter, banks are too big to fail, but we are too small to matter. And we didn't do the right things to right-size these economies. And then COVID came. COVID is a zoonotic disease, direct result of destruction of biodiversity. We had Zika, SARS, Ebola, Asian flu, and the list goes on. But this was a particularly nasty one. And again, Europe and the US rose to the challenge. We spent $17.3 trillion to save lives and livelihoods. Obviously, we would have to do that. I'd be the first one to agree on that one. But we hoarded about 4 to 5 times more vaccines than we needed ourselves, and we refused to give any to the developing markets. In fact, we closed our borders also for material. Then pro forma, because we want to be in the newspapers as good people, we ship a few of those to the emerging markets about 2 weeks before the deadline of expiration, you know, when there's no system really to distribute and to bring it to people. So people said, where's this global solidarity? You know, are we first and foremost citizens of planet Earth, or are we just fighting for, for ourselves in a way that we we all destroy, a sort of a zero-sum game, which goes beyond zero-sum. It's idiotic when you both lose in the end, in my opinion. But people started to question what was happening. And yet we were able to spend $17.3 trillion, but again, we didn't right-size these economies. About 5% of that spending went to greening the economy. Most of the spending was towards the old brown destructive economy. Quite admirable, quite admirable. But it shows you how entrenched it is, how difficult it is when you need to change energy systems, healthcare systems, food systems. It's not so easy to do. So where do we find ourselves now? In a really good situation. First of all, I cannot change anyway where we find ourselves, so it's better to just realize where we are. But I'm actually happy about it because if you get one issue like the financial crisis or one issue like the COVID I believe it's all related. But now we end up with having to deal with everything. We have governments not working anymore. We have climate change coming there. We have geopolitical wars. We have the disruptions of AI and the list goes on. Everything is coming together. So that's a wonderful moment because we're finding that moment arriving when we have a bigger awareness of what is going on in the world, more than we've ever had. There's more data available to all of us than we've ever had. More understanding of what the systems change effects are of what we're doing. But it arrives at the same time as we have technology coming out of our ears. 80 to 90% of the problems we need to address can be addressed with technology that is available today. And guess what? Most of it is cheaper than what we are doing. We can challenge each other on all of that. Sometimes it requires us to walk alone. Sometimes it requires us to work together, but we have the tools now and we have the economics working for us. So when you then have so many different pieces on the ground because the teapot has fallen in 20 different pieces, we have the best opportunity that we've ever had in mankind to reconfigure something that is better. The best thing we've done, and Marco will talk tomorrow— Marco is sitting here— What do we need to do to create, you know, to bring the— some of you might be familiar with the commitments that have been made in the biodiversity conventions to save 30% of the Earth and start there and then start regenerating. So we need to create this net-positive nature, and that's a big thing. But people are starting to understand now that we are an integral part of nature, that by destroying nature on which we all depend, that provides services of well over $100 trillion, bigger services than the economy itself was, that if we don't take care of that, we end up destroying ourselves. I think on climate change, we did a little bit of a lousy job by making it too scientific. We were talking that over lunch right now, by talking parts per million. Talk to Americans about 1.5 degrees Celsius, they look at you and they think you come from Mars. They use Fahrenheit for anybody who's traveled there. So a lot of the things were just out of touch with the reality of people. It was communicated with a sense of fear, a thing that was so big you couldn't get your hands around anyway. No wonder that anybody, including the private sector, kicked the can down the road. Now, fortunately, with the work of the Stockholm Resilience Institute and many others— you've undoubtedly seen many of the talks that Johan Rockström gives— we are now able to look at the planetary health, which obviously is also the human health. I don't have to explain that to you. in 9 planetary boundaries. Things like land, things like water, things like forests, things like oceans, things like our atmosphere. And unfortunately, 7 out of these 9 are already beyond what we would think are maximum acceptable levels. We're now playing with fire. If you talk to the major climate scientists, which is a very evolving profession, it's very new, to be honest, because it's also very complex. If you have these 9 factors and they all inter— they're interdependent, you understand that. But anytime they find out something, and I've followed them for the last 30, 40 years, but anytime they find out something, they're actually more worried about how close we are to what is called these negative tipping points. You talk to Carlos Nobre, who is one of the best climate scientists on the Amazon, he will say we're about 16% away. from the Amazon becoming negative tipping points, where it doesn't absorb carbon anymore but it actually starts to emit. In fact, there is already 30-40% of the Amazon that is doing that, and we're seeing the effects. We're seeing the effects in the droughts and the changes of temperature well beyond what we're used to for any normal season. We see the AMOC changing the flows of the oceans. We see the Antarctic and the rapid melting of that. Anywhere we look, there are signs of stress that are beyond what we have seen until now and arriving at us at a speed that is far beyond what we've ever been able to handle. The climate disasters alone, we have spent over the last decade more than $4 trillion, which is about 5 to 10 times more than the normal patterns of disasters that we had to deal with before. That's costs that we are paying. That's costs that we bear. So our point here is very simple. If you look at these negative tipping points and the resulting instability at a political level, if I may ask and may say it that way, they're obviously closely related. And so what has been our response? Well, our first response Was a little bit of philanthropical. You know, we we we give some money because we feel so bad that we make so much money. So we create a little bit of CSR corporate social responsibility. We say if you want to do it, you know, at best, 95% of companies now have corporate social responsibility programs, and they they issue reports about that. I read some of them. Sometimes you get tears in your eyes. In your eyes, they're clearly the best public relations departments, the best lawyers, and everything. You know, it makes for amusing reading. But it all talks about being less bad, a little bit less carbon in the atmosphere, a little bit less plastics in the oceans, a little bit less deforestation in my supply chain. But when we've overshot these planetary boundaries to such an extent, then less bad doesn't make sense anymore. I used to kill 10 people. I was a very good murderer. Now I only kill 5 people. Am I a better murderer? No. But this is in fact what we're doing. The reason that these wonderful Sustainable Development Goals that you've undoubtedly heard of, we only have 17% on track, and with a little bit of luck, maximum 35% that can be achieved by 2030, is because yes, we've had the financial crisis, we've had the COVID that didn't help either, but we have a mindset problem that we think by being less bad we can solve it. But if we grow these economies by being less bad, you still add to the badness. You understand what I'm saying? You still add to more climate change, more plastics in the oceans, more deforestation, more inequality. And this is what we're seeing. We're at a trend that we're growing faster than we're attacking these issues, clearly. The Sustainable Development Goals, by the way, is one of the best plans that we have developed for humanity with a very simple objective: to irreversibly eradicate poverty and do that in a more sustainable and equitable way. I mean, I couldn't Think of something better. At least when I grew up in the Netherlands, we were taught by our parents, thank God, and you know they were victims of World War Two, but that we have to fight for dignity and respect for everybody, that we have to fight for equity, that we need to have compassion. And if we fight for these universal values for all human beings, then it's worth living. If we start to categorize and think we are more important than others, or our growth or economic success is at the expense of others, I don't think I want to deal with that. I don't think humanity wants to deal with that. So the Sustainable Development Goals, a very simple sentence, not leave anybody behind, is probably the best plan that we have. But what do we need to do to get there? Obviously, we've never decarbonized an economy. We're carbon junkies. We don't know how to grow without carbon. Getting a little better at it, but we just don't know. We have a food system that if you come from Mars, you think we're the most idiotic people that have ever been invented. We cut down the forests, we keep the smallholder farmers poor, we keep the children stunted, we degrade the land, we create about half of the world's population that is either underfed or overfed, and then if we have too many that become overweight or obese, we invent something that we step in our stomach and think that that will solve the problem, and then we waste. 30 to 40% of our food. If food alone was a country, it would be the 3rd biggest carbon emitter in the world. It uses 80 to 90% of the water that we have. It's the biggest driver of poverty. A system like that that wastes 30 to 40% of the food— just think about it. You must be a lunatic if you come from Mars and see what we're doing. You must be thinking this. This race to humanity is off the wall. But it's difficult to change. We work on food systems for 30, 40 years already. And of course, they're very individual and at local level success stories. But are we really moving forward? It's difficult. Our healthcare systems? Nope. As we are aging and figure out how to live longer, No country has a healthcare system that actually functions. It actually should never be called a healthcare system because we've invented in most countries a sickness care system, not a healthcare system. A healthcare system would be eating healthy food, would be drinking clean water, would be breathing fresh air, would be walking in the forest and losing our biodiversity and our knowledge for that and all the gifts that come from that to give us a healthier life. So it is a challenge. It is a challenge that no individual can do alone at the individual level or at the local level or at the city level. Of course, you can do things at a country level, but if you don't work together with the private sector, with civil society, with governments, with NGOs, with the scientists to tackle the problems now, we'll never solve it, to be honest. So the most important thing is not technology because it's there. It's actually not money because the money is there as well. It's just that we misallocate risks or that we underestimate the speed with which the future is coming, that we misprice it. And if you misprice money, it goes to the wrong things. It goes to easy returns, which is very easy to do nowadays. And that's why we have a few people that are very smart in the capital market that seem to soon become trillionaires. But we have to find a way to channel that to the real economy, and that can only be done if we measure risk and returns differently. Otherwise, it doesn't work. So some people are saying because of all of this, we're actually moving backwards, this whole sustainability thing. Is not working anymore. I was talking to 500 sustainability directors of companies. My boss is cutting the number of people in our company. We cannot work on this or that anymore, etc., etc. So the first thing I'd say to them is always, you know, there's a lot that makes economic sense now that you should be doing that is totally in line with probably the original objectives you had on sustainability. The second thing is to think about why we find ourselves in this situation. It might also be that we have something to do with that ourselves. In many companies, sustainability was reporting, was box-ticking, or was making claims for 2050 knowing that you wouldn't be there in the first place. We called it greenwashing to some extent. Had a low level of credibility. Low level of credibility. So no wonder that you open the door to the opposition, the vested order. some of the politicians that are being financed by them and have this debate that we've seen everywhere in the world on what is woke or what is not woke. So it's good that we get a little bit of pressure there to figure out how to truly change it and how to truly change it at speed. And then we're a little bit fortunate in a sense that we have an awful war in the Ukraine and an awful war in the Middle East. It's unfortunate that these wars are there, but again, you know, Never miss an opportunity to exploit a crisis. Never let a good crisis go to waste. It actually adds a dimension to the change process of security, geopolitical dimensions that we probably hadn't really fully factored in. All of a sudden, the 75% of countries in the world that were dependent on import of fuel are saying, hey, you know, I'm sitting on 5 to 10 times myself If I accelerate the move to green energy, countries like Pakistan have moved to 20% energy coming from solar. Countries like Nigeria, Kenya—they're being unlocked at a speed you wouldn't believe. It's in the Far East now. The the conversion to green energy there is exponential. In fact, I was talking to a group of Chinese business people at Oxford two or three weeks ago, and the first four months of the year. China's exports of batteries, solar panels, electric vehicles, and many of these things has increased by 70%. When people thought electric vehicles were going in the wrong direction, it's actually accelerating. When people thought, you know, no, Trump and his buddies have killed solar, now wind, it's actually accelerating. 90% of the energy investments that have been made in the US in the last 10 years which is 2 precedent terms of this president, have been in green energy. States like Texas, Wyoming are actually the leaders. These are red states. Every capacity that has come on stream is green energy. Too bad that AI has come along and needs a lot of energy right now, so we haven't been able to give that to the rest of the economy. That has kept fossil fuel alive. But certainly now it's accelerating beyond tipping points. We spent last year $2.3 trillion on green energy investments and expansions. That is more than double of what we spent on fossil fuel, where frankly no new drilling is happening and no new mines are being opened. If people say coal mines are being opened, this president in the US right now actually during his 2 tenures has closed more coal mines than any other president in the history of the United States. So we're not moving backwards at all. We're absolutely not moving backwards. We're moving forwards and we're moving forwards actually faster than we did before. But the reality is we're not moving forward fast enough. In order to stay around the 1.5 degrees, which by the way is by all means still possible, we might overshoot it slightly, but then we work a little bit harder to go back. It's by all means possible. We need to spend 3 times what we spend currently. So instead of spending the $2.3 trillion, we need to spend the $6 to $7 trillion. That's a lot of money. But how much is that money really if Elon Musk is now paying himself $1 trillion a year? if we were willing to spend $19 trillion on keeping people alive during COVID if we're spending already $6.5 trillion now on the costs of climate change. In fact, coming back to the Sustainable Development Goals, there are 17 goals that make up the Sustainable Development Goals. I can have a separate discussion with you for as long as you want it, that on every of these goals, on every of these goals, we are already spending more on every individual goal than what it requires to make all of the goals come alive. To make the Sustainable Development Goals come alive is about $5 to $8 trillion if you want to be generous. You have to spend that every year. But you know how much we spent just on goal number 16, conflict prevention and wars? On goal number 16, we spent 12% of the global GDP. We spend 3 times more already on one goal than it would cost us to implement everything and avoid the issues in the first place. On climate change, goal number 13. On gender equality, goal number 5. Gender, if we would give women truly the same opportunities all across the world, and it's only 6 countries that are more or less have that, believe it or not, you'd unlock $25 trillion. Every goal. So it's not a question of money. It's not a question— we are, you know, and then we have the audacity to call ourselves the most intelligent species. We're willing to spend more money to drive our demise than the money we have to spend to avoid these issues in the first place. Now turn this around if you want to, because if you turn this around, then we're sitting on the biggest opportunity that mankind ever has had. Also for the private sector. And you might say, yeah, but the private sector is driven by the shareholders. That's okay. Shareholders are one of the stakeholders. Unashamingly, I don't have a problem with that. But your business also needs to be run for other shareholders. The value that is created is a long-term thing. You don't create value on a quarterly basis. You need to build a factory. You need to go into a country. You need to invent a new product. You need to train people and make them senior management. You need to invest in IT systems. They all take years to do that. People calculate that value creation takes 5 to 10 years. So you need to run your businesses for the longer term. If you run your businesses for the longer term, then by definition you have to take care of everybody that's involved. If you don't have good relationships with your employees, I don't think you're going to be successful. If you don't work well with the communities that you're in or with the people that are into your value chains, or if you're not contributing in a positive way but just extracting, it's not going to last so much. So this is a wonderful moment that we find ourselves in, that for the first time, I believe, in the last 50 or 60 years, the interest, believe it or not, of most of the shareholders are actually inherently aligned with a business model that is more socially responsible in the sense of what we need to do to solve these issues for society. With COVID one thing happened. That was quite interesting to me. Not surprisingly, we saw bifurcation between companies where companies that were myotically focused on the shareholder and run for the short term needed to get a bailout from governments because they had an overleveraged balance sheet, you know, all these type of things. And they— whilst companies that were run for the multi-stakeholder, longer-term, purpose-driven models were more successful, more resilient. We'd known that all the time, but I think it became very transparent during COVID But we saw also a bifurcation at the same time in leadership, where we saw that companies that had a certain type of leaders— I'll talk about in a second— were more successful than others. Before I get to the leadership, let me come back to why we need this mindset change. I talked to you about CSR, having a mindset change of being less bad and, and feeling good about that to some extent because we do so much more than my predecessors did. But less bad is not the answer. It still adds up to a situation that we find ourselves in now. So the switch that we're simply advocating is to move from a mindset of CSR to what I call RSC, from corporate social responsibility to becoming responsible social corporations. I use the same words because I like the circular economy, but responsible social corporations are quite different. For us, responsible corporations, social corporations, ask themselves a very simple question: how do I profit from solving the world's problems, not creating the world's problems? And a follow-up question: is the world better off, yes or no, because my company is in it? I'm not sure how many companies can actually answer these 2 questions in the affirmative. A net-positive company takes responsibility of its total impact in society. Many companies still think that they can outsource their value chain and also outsource their responsibilities. That doesn't work anymore. A net-positive company works with all of the stakeholders and tries to optimize the returns for all of the stakeholders, knowing that that is the best way for long-term value creation. A net-positive company needs a return to stay alive. Believe me or not, you do need a positive cash flow if you want to stay alive. And the shareholders need a certain return for the capital that they give in, but they're not driven by the shareholders. They see profits and the shareholder return as a result of what they do, not a myopic objective. Profits is a little bit like the white blood cells in your body, if I may be honest. We all need white blood cells to live, but there are very few of us— I think I haven't met any yet— that lives for white blood cells. Hey, how are your white blood cells today? Do you have good white blood cell day or a bad white blood cell day? No, you live for something else, something bigger, a bigger purpose. Net positive companies understand that. They also understand that they have to work in collaboration. Do something bigger together than they can do alone. And they are consistent, consistent in everything they do. They don't say one thing here but use their trade association to say something else. They don't keep the workers' pay low and reward themselves enormously. They don't have, you know, they don't spend money to influence politics. They let democracy work. So they pay tax where they need to pay tax. So net-positive companies are consistent on the tougher choices. And why is that important? Because that's where trust is built. And ultimately, to solve these issues, the main currency that we need is trust. That's the basis ultimately for prosperity. And that can only come from consistency and transparency and accountability. You understand that better than anybody else. Let me end by Going to the key point, which is that this is a human crisis. Wherever you look, in every challenge that we face right now, in every industry, we have frontrunners that are already attacking the issues. In climate change, we have a group of climate champions that has signed into the SBTIs and the Paris Agreements. They're on— they have decarbonization plans that lead them to net zero by 2030— 2050, sorry. We actually have 47 countries in the world that are still on track for the Paris Agreement. They are front runners. By the way, within that group, nobody is suffering as a group. What we actually see is that they're collectively doing better than the others. Of course, you need to run your business properly, but collectively they are doing better. We see the economy of green economy being $7.9 trillion now at 15% growth. All the growth of the economy is there. Not surprising. We see that companies that think about positioning themselves to the future are unlocking hundreds of billions of dollars of opportunity, whilst the ones looking at the past don't see so many value creation opportunities anymore. We also see that the stock market actually rewards those companies. Believe it or not, the Green Index, if you go back to 2008 to now, you don't look at one year, you know, but between 2008 and now, it's the second biggest performer on the stock market. The only one doing better is AI. And you can argue AI is a sort of a mix. You know, they fall on both sides, I would say. So financial markets have already woken up to the fact that this is the right thing. When people say financial markets don't want this, they don't care, they're only short-term, those are soundbites. They're frankly not the reality. So we have the technologies to solve these issues. We have the data, the tools. We have the financing to make it happen. So then what is missing? The main element that is missing is human willpower. It's do we really want it? The people that can make a difference, are they really willing to do it? to be honest. And that's a leadership thing. And leadership, you don't— you know, a good captain is not born in a harbor, it's born in a storm. And there we see that we have a failure of leadership. How many CEOs flipped 180% when a new president came to office, bending over to finance a new ballroom or another building with his name on it or his inaugural campaign? Not surprising, by the way, that we've seen in the US the engagement scores go down to, uh, to about 20% now. We saw the biggest drop in the history of mankind. Only 1 in 5 goes to work being engaged. That's a failure destroyer. I don't think you have to explain that to too many people. But the CEOs that get it are getting rewarded. So what type of leadership do we now need? A high level of empathy, of compassion, not surprisingly. A high level of humanity, humility. A strong sense of purpose, a willingness to work with others and cooperate, and last but not least, this systems change thinking, working on something bigger than just your own self-interest. And leaders that are there, that have these skill sets, if you want, or these attitudes, are the ones that create a following, that build trust, that unlock that potential to actually make these tougher choices. The biggest word in this is courage. I think a combination of empathy and, and purpose itself gives that courage. It takes courage to set targets in line with science, targets that you don't know yet how you're going to make it. It takes courage to work with governments or to work sometimes with your competitors or others in the industry and to have to deal with the inconvenient truths that you might hear from others. if you do that. You know, it takes courage to take responsibility for these bigger challenges. So if there's one shortage in the world, I think at the end of the day, it's probably courageous leadership. And that's the most important thing that we need to invest in. And, uh, so fortunately what I see, I wanna end with, um, with how I started perhaps, which is the hope, uh, element. Uh, fortunately what I see, I think that this is the right moment for anybody to be part of this change that is happening. If you provide it, you're just realistic about it. Realistic that we are in a tough period. Realistic that we have to work on our own self-resilience before we deal with these broader issues. Realistic that we need to invest. In ourselves at a different level than we've perhaps done before. But then you discover that with the technologies exponentially going, with the cost curves going down exponentially, with the enormous amounts of projects that are out there, especially driven by many of the younger generations, that there is so much going on and so many opportunities to unlock this now. That it's time to give the right people a seat at the table and unlock that potential. At— when I was running Unilever, that strategy was for us certainly working in terms of growing the company, growing shareholder value, moving to sustainable sourcing, creating livelihoods for people, ensuring that they had livable wages and all the other things. Did never ever go at the expense of anything. It made us stronger and it made us more resilient and it showed us that business could be done in a different way. And the best way now where we are on this sustainability journey where we do need to get the private sector above all behind us to move forward is to show, if you like it or not, that the companies that are taking more courage that we support as citizens more, that they are more successful. Because no better way to change people than to create the fear of missing out on the train that frankly has left the station already. So I think I'm out of time. Good luck. Thanks. We'll talk later.