Rai - TG3 Intervista a Gianpietro Benedetti Danieli 2013

Yes, I'd say — I don't know if it's recent — but the decision by Engineer Luigi Danieli in 1958. As a former technician at SAFO in Udine, which is also important, he decided to start designing machines for the steel industry, inspired by the Swedish Morgan Shammar. And from there, essentially, our history began.

Because we foresee, unfortunately, a decline in demand for steel plants over the next 3-5 years, and we think we can compensate for the decline with aluminum plants.

Let's say, globally, steel consumption grows by 3% per year. It's growing this year and will grow next year. The utilization factor of steel plants worldwide is 77%, whereas normally the average is 85-87%, so we're missing about 10%. Global steel consumption is 1.15 billion tonnes, so currently 150-200 million tonnes represent overproduction. If we increase by 3% on average, it takes 2-3 years to absorb this extra production, this unused capacity. So we believe that over the next 3 years, not many new plants will be built.

It indicates that next year we should be at a similar revenue. We hope for something more, about 5% more.

We need a bit more responsibility to see the social consequences of not doing anything. Of course, if we keep reducing factories, if we keep reducing production, the genius will pop up who says 'I told you energy wasn't needed — everyone closed, everyone at home.' You have to consider whether you're basing your thinking on a forward-looking vision of reasonable, sustainable development, or whether you're fighting holy wars case by case for reasons that are often quite questionable. But that's just my opinion.

I believe that one of our management methods — which is of course open to criticism as an opinion — is that we try to give great importance to merit, to loyalty, to corporate loyalty. And when a person does their job well, with responsibility, it doesn't matter at what level they operate. They have the right to the utmost respect and dignity within the company from everyone. So, attention to merit, and attention to needs. It's been 20 or 30 years that we've tried to make the work environment one of quality, the same quality that is required of employees.

First, education. We could stay here. If we manage to improve the intellectual level of everyone working here, and to support this idea of improving technology and capabilities, education is fundamental. That's why for 10-15 years we've been asking to improve schools, including merit in schools, also for teachers, and to recognize teachers — masters, professors — for what they're worth, not for how many years they've worked. Second, the famous tax wedge, which has been discussed and rediscussed, through the redevelopment of public administration costs. Third, bureaucracy — well, I won't comment. We all know. I see that even speaking about schools, I'm chairman of a higher technical institute. You feel the pressure of bureaucracy — it's not a company, it's a school, but it applies. If you work in the judiciary, in schools, in hospitals, or run a company, the problem of bureaucracy or Byzantine rules made to contain those who don't do what they should ends up damaging the majority who normally do what they should. I don't know if I'm being clear. In short, that's bureaucracy. So here we need a new, young vision of organization, to give space to the energy to do things. Otherwise, we'll end up compressing ourselves, withering like a sick plant, progressively.