2024 World Business Outlook: Royal DSM's former CEO Feike Sijbesma

Well, you know, this whole World Economic Forum has the connection to globalization, that we are all connected to each other. And by the way, we are all connected to each other in the world in global trade. China is the big manufacturing machine of the world, but a lot of the products that China is exporting come from imports of products into China. China converts and exports, so you see here that every country—Europe, the US, China—is dependent on each other. Globalization brought prosperity to many people, billions of people in many countries, but the problem is it did not bring prosperity to all countries—if I look to Africa, etc.—and not to all people in all countries. If you live in the middle part of the US, you see the two coast areas became richer and the middle part not so. I think we need to make globalization much more inclusive, and if not, then we see at this moment a pushback of globalization with regionalization or nationalization: America First, Made in India, China, or Europe, etc. What is the role of new technologies likely to play? Over the past decade or so, we see new technologies being taken advantage of, and yet we also see the wealth increasing in the world, but we see the gap ever larger. So, to your confidence, we are learning the lessons. I'm convinced that technology can bring an awful lot, the innovations can bring an awful lot. We have huge problems with climate, and Africa is suffering. Macky Sall, when he was chairman of the African Union, said, "We Africans suffer the most, we Africans cost the least, and please you need to help." Well, there are now seeds that can survive in droughts or flooding periods, new agricultural techniques, etc. There are new instruments and techniques to protect cities or protect infrastructure. So we have a big problem—climate change—we have many people suffering, but we also have new technologies to address that. The issue is, however: can we allocate the right money streams to those who need it, and can we implement it where it's needed? But it's not true that the world does not have technology solutions for its problems, and that's the good news. But now we see it's a fractured world. Geopolitics, geoeconomics are getting ever more complicated. As a result, there were certain areas of technology—chips, for example—which very obviously have become a tool of geopolitics. So many people are so worried now whether other areas will also become victims.

Yeah, because if you look to technology, take AI, take chips—everybody needs the chips, everybody needs AI. And you see that the world is fragmented, the technologies are fragmented. One has this part of the technology and patented it, another has another part of technology and patented it. Now we need both parts of the technology to get it working. There we had several sessions this week where people find out, oh, even I cannot do without you because I need you, and by the way you need me also. That's interdependence, not in countries, but interdependence in technologies, companies, competencies, solutions, etc. And what we try to do in some sessions is not only having those business people or academia discuss that, but bring in political leaders to watch that and to see, hey, you political leaders need to take care: we still collaborate in the world. However, I need to say also that the same political leaders will not be reelected—we have the year of elections, half of the global population goes to elections—they will not be reelected if they do not make globalization and economic prosperity more inclusive, because then the voters will not vote for them. So they—I'm glad I'm not a politician—they have the difficult task to continue to deal with interdependence and to take care of the people in their own region who did not benefit from it. By the way, China did a pretty good job about that, if we see how prosperity increased in China, how hunger is totally out of China, etc. China I think did an amazing job. I feel very positive discussion also with Mr. Xie, the climate envoy for China, at COP and lots of places. China is very open to take action, collaborate with others, etc., and that is I think what we need.

It's interesting: when you read the newspapers, watch television, listen to some politicians, you feel this geopolitical tension. Okay, if you're on boards and the executive committee of companies—I'm involved in several big companies, whether it's Johnson & Johnson or Philips or DSM, etc.—every company wants to be globally active. No company is saying forget China or forget Asia or forget the US. No, they all want to be active, and they say we cannot afford not to be in. So if I'm in the boards of companies, I see a great intention to collaborate with everybody, to enter all markets. And then you watch at the same moment television in the evening and you see the tension. So what's the reason for this? Why so disconnected? Well, I think because the politicians are afraid that a part of the population is not benefiting enough and they are angry. We have seen that in the elections in the Netherlands—we need still to wait the US—I've seen other countries. So a part of the population is not happy. I think, and I say that also in our boards, as companies we need to take care of that one also. We need to help the governments to get this more inclusive and to create prosperity for others, otherwise governments will not help us. The other thing is we need to communicate better with governments and political leaders, and that's the advantage here of the Forum—so many interactions with political leaders of what business is doing, and to open their eyes. But the worlds of business and the public sector still talk two different languages.

I understand the political correctness, and as you indicated, it's there. But I hope—and that's what I stimulate in the board—that we show the world as it is. And if that is an inconvenient message for some, then be an inconvenient message. This is a little bit the emperor's clothes ever. I mean, please tell how the world really is. And listen, we need to have each other. If I take one thing: to address climate change, a price on carbon. Is that a company thing? Is that a country thing? A government thing? The governments do not dare to put a price on carbon. If companies say 'we will be less competitive,' now more companies say 'you need to put a price on carbon to change us.' Then governments have the power to make regulations. Companies cannot do that. So this is the interaction: companies need to help governments to dare to put a price on carbon. If countries put a price on carbon, then companies will move and become more sustainable. So here you see the interaction, and we had on this carbon pricing several sessions during the Forum: government and private sector. 'Hey, we hold each other hostage. Let's help each other in plan and hold each other hostage,' right?

Europe cannot do without China, and I hope China cannot do without Europe. We need each other. So many products of Europe come out of China, and it will be much more expensive or sometimes even impossible to manufacture those in Europe, and we need—we have the demand of those products—so we need China. Let's also be clear: a lot of the products, like I said, China's exports come from imported goods also, so China needs other parts of the world as well, and we need to collaborate. You cannot cut off regions of the world from technology. And let's be honest, technology is providing so much. We from Philips, we see what we can do in home care at this moment with AI. AI will change every single company. So I'm positive on what technology can bring, but I agree with you, I'm also concerned about the fragmentation at this moment and the different language that the business sector and the public sector speak. They need each other. They cannot have two different worlds in our interest. And we need to address better international governance possibilities, for example about AI. The UN is doing something, we also see the AI Summit earlier in the UK involving players including China. But the speed of all of these discussions is so much lagging behind the real development. That's one thing. The other thing is, as we know, sometimes scientists do not even know what they're doing because things can be developing very fast without them knowing exactly what are the things they are working on today.

What you need to do is you need to be transparent and open. First, AI will result in losing some jobs—it will happen, some jobs will disappear—and I think we need to be honest on that. At the same moment, the same AI will create new jobs and create new realities. That's the logic, isn't it? And we need to be open on that. AI can be used for negative things, absolutely. Let's be open on that. AI can be used for positive things also. And I think companies and governments need to be very open on that. Otherwise, and I see some companies doing that, 'No, it's only positive and only blessings.' And then you have other people say, 'Well, that's not totally true.' Let's tell both truths. But it's not easy to tell the truth because the literacy of these technologies is not necessarily sufficient. Yeah, it's the only way to tell the truth. And also to indicate a small example from Philips. It is important to see that they shift sometimes your own R&D programs. Philips makes monitors of CT and MRIs. We want to increase the pixel density because then you see it's sharper, that's better for the doctors. Now with AI, we tell our resources, we don't need to increase the pixel density; AI will make it bigger pixel density and you see it better. So sometimes even your whole R&D programs are shifting due to AI, and that is fascinating.