On January 18, 2022, Richard Edelman unveiled findings from the 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer.
After his initial presentation, Gillian Tett, U.S. editor-at-large of the Financial Times moderated a discussion of the findings with:
I'm including a full transcript of the session below. But the first part, where Richard Edelman presents, may be of most interest to nonprofit/charity folks. For 19 years of the Edelman Trust Barometer NGOs have been the most trusted institution. You're still second this year, but it's worth looking at the nuances of where NGO/community organizations are trusted. He delves into some of that of those nuances in his presentation, and they're interesting.
There should be a Canadian version of the report in the near future (there usually is). For now, you can read articles and analysis about the 2022 global report here. And you can download the report/slide deck here. Also embedded here:
What follows is an AI-generated transcript of our conversation using Otter.ai. The transcript has not been edited. It may contain errors and odd sentence breaks and is not a substitute for listening to the audio.
Richard Edelman 0:07
Good morning. It's Richard Edelman from New York. And I'm here today to unveil the results of the 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer. Following my presentation, we'll have Gillian tett of the Financial Times, and a panel of global experts, CEOs and government officials to discuss the findings. So I'm going to go straight to it. We started the Trust Barometer after the battle in Seattle in 1999. We wanted to understand the impact of NGOs on global society, and found in fact that NGOs were the most trusted institution and global society. So that is not today, the finding. In fact, in our study, which we've done in 28 countries during the early part of November, with 36,000 respondents, we find, in fact, a big change. So moving on to 22 years of trust. Among the most important findings over that period of time, NGOs were the most trusted institution for 19 years, we found post the financial crisis that business trust collapsed. It was followed, in fact, by a decline in government trust due to the impasse in Brussels on Greek debt, the blockade in DC, over the spending limits, and what we now find is a cycle of distrust, especially between the media and government. So, here we go. We believe that we are in a new low level of distrust in the world, that in fact, business is the sole trusted institution, NGOs close. But contrast that to May 2020, only 18 months ago, where government was the most trusted institution in the world, it was the only one big enough to manage a crisis of the size of the pandemic, and government in short, has failed that test. In short, media and government today are seen as divisive, they are locked in a cycle of distrust. By contrast, both business and NGOs are seen as unifying forces in society. New sources have failed to fix their problem of trust. We see this as an airplane slowly losing altitude. It's not a crisis is not plunging yet. But social media is at a crisis point in Western Europe. Traditional media is at a crisis point in parts of Asia, in particular in Japan and Korea, and also in the United States. Fake news is the core problem. This is a universal dilemma for news organizations. And the extent to which social media has polluted the bloodstream is evident by this concern about fake news. People want government to lead on societal problems. But the crisis is in government because it doesn't get results. Note that only 42% of people believe that government can execute plans 44% believe that government can execute on a leadership basis across institutions. You'll see also that the result of this is that institutions are perceived as having failed in the two biggest challenges of our time, which is the pandemic and climate change across the board. So we have big problems and an inability of institutions to solve them. At the same time, societal fears are on the rise. How can you run fast forward, if in fact, you're looking behind yourself? 85% of people are worried about job loss because of the pandemic or because of automation, followed by climate change cyber hacks, losing freedoms and racism. We also though see a cycle of distrust. Let me try to explain this model. In fact, we have a government that is sowing division because it leads to votes. Media unfortunately follows with information that suits polarities, and it's causing societal instability between division and disinformation. What we have to do is find a way to break this cycle with quality information.
Richard Edelman 4:42
The failure of leadership is evident it is making the problems worse. Distrust is now the default sentiment in the world. Take a look. Only 42% trust government leaders 46% journalists 49% CEOs, who do they trust scientists, co workers. And interestingly, my CEO, a theme that we've discussed in the past, which is trust is local, in my company, in my co workers, therefore big obligations on to CEOs to speak up. This slide is stunning two thirds believe they're being lied to by our traditional leaders, whether journalists, government, or business leaders purposely trying to mislead us, in order to get popularity, or to get clicks. The maths class divide became evident. First in 2012, it was about a four year lag time from the Great Recession. But what's happened is, it's become transversal. It's become cost the world note that between the top 25% of income and the bottom 25% of income, you see big divides in countries as diverse as Thailand, Saudi Arabia, the UK, Germany, Holland. So in short, Western democracies, monarchies, Asian success stories in short, mass class divide transversal. The politics of the world are getting more distrusting. What you see is a collapse of trust among Republicans in institutions in the United States, especially in business, for the first time, Republicans trust business less than Democrats. That is a shocking finding. In short, Republicans believe that business has gone too far that CEOs are woke that In short, the job is shareholders. It's not a broader societal context, but also in media 24% Trust in media among Republicans, that is effectively a signing off of media. Trust has become local, less trust for outsiders, closer bonds with neighbors and co workers, again to the thesis, my CEO, my company, my community, more nationalism, more. provincialism. Distrust is now the default in society. I distrust unless I see evidence. I also believe that our society lacks the ability to have a constructive dialogue. We can't have civil discourse. This is corrosive for democracy. And that's why we've seen a collapse of trust in democracies. Here, what we see is, there is no democracy in the blue color. In the general population, for the first time in 20 years that we've been doing this study, not a single democracy is seen as in trustworthy land. In short, the big losers this year, Germany, Australia, Holland, South Korea, the US, the US is the saddest story of all over the decade, dropping from a solid middle to a bottom for four of the five in the bottom are democracies. why? It's because developed countries lack economic optimism. Not a single democracy in the developed world, believes that its families will be better off in five years. That's a deep condemnation of the system. I'm going backwards, I'm afraid. And therefore I question capitalism. More people question the validity of capitalism today than ever before. More than half of our respondents say it does more harm than good. And a full 1/3 believe centrally managed economies do a better job than free market economies.
Richard Edelman 9:05
This is a very important slide. The people of China have a deep trust in their institutions. In contrast, America, and Americans have a low trust in their institutions. This is the widest gap we've ever seen. In trust between the two countries. The biggest gap is actually in government. The Chinese believe in their government, the Americans don't. And there's very little difference between the institutions in China, but I want you to see that there are relatively large gaps between institutions in the US 10 points or more. Now, also important to say, brand China is at an all time low. If you're a company that's a Chinese company wearing that flag into the game, you only have 31% Trust. If you're wearing the American flag on your jersey you have 50 3% trust again a solid middle. We believe that societal leadership is now a core business function. I'm going to try to prove this case. All stakeholders, from consumers, to employees to investors now hold business accountable for societal issues. I'm a belief driven buyer 60%. I'll only buy brands that advocate for my beliefs. I'm a belief driven employee 60% I will only work at Allianz if I believe in what Oliver is doing. I'm also as an institutional investor, 88%, say I put ESG at the same level as financial performance, or operational excellence in buying shares. This is a major change in money markets. Again, I want to reiterate the centrality of the thesis, my employer, my employer is 16 points higher than business in general, my employer is universally trusted around the world. Trust is local, therefore, responsibility to speak up. Or shocker, my employer media for the second year in a row is the most trusted source of information. Again, whether it's about the pandemic, whether it's about re skilling, this channel is not seen as politicized, it is seen as honest, and therefore something I can believe, in contrast to government media, or other CEOs. This is a vital slide also, because CEOs are to be seen as the face of change. I, as an employee, want my CEO to speak up 60% of employees say this about controversial social and political issues that I care about CEOs to be personally visible when discussing public policy. Now, important distinction, inform policy don't influence politics. This is a very fine line about labor practices in China or several other issues, but on jobs in the economy, about technology and automation, about wage inequality, etc, what not to do try to help pick who the next leader of the country is stay out of politics. How are we going to break this cycle of distrust? Well, here's a way this is our model. Competence on the x axis ethical behavior on the Y we've been following this for years, what's happened is that you've seen government creep down to the bottom left business to the top right, NGOs have recovered into also being in the top right. So business is 53 points more competent than government, a shocking finding NGOs, the most ethical business improved on ethics. Again, if you think about the model, sort of like a seesaw at the playground, NGOs in business have to be stabilizing forces, for weak performance by media and by government. Over time to get to stability, we have to get government and media to move closer to the top right.
Richard Edelman 13:32
We actually thought this year that we had reached a limit for how much business should be involved on societal issues, we were wrong. Business Engagement on societal issues, people want more of, not less, five times more for climate change, economic inequality, workforce, reskilling and then somewhat less on injustice only four times as much. In short, we want more, not less of business as the stabilizing force. Why? Because business is effective. But business is also visionary. I want you to note, however, NGOs score very highly here, because it would be smart to do more partnering with civil society, not less the last few years, it's been a little bit push away. Don't do that. Put the arms around and work with civil society. cautionary note, fairness, business scores poorly unfairness that mass class divide is partly chalked up to business. A central thesis of the Trust Barometer 2022 Good information can help close the societal divide. How do we know this? Because a person who's in that low income group, who is well informed has a 10 point bump in trust in institutions. By contrast, a person who's in the high income group Who's not well informed has a seven point drop in trust our thesis, if you read three or four new sources a day, if you also check the information with other sources to make sure that it's accurate, you are in a short, closing the societal divide, you are helping repair society. We find information quality is the most powerful trust builder across institutions. This is not any longer the job of media, it is the job of every institution to support media to make sure that media is added to we've had job losses in media, we've had moved to polarization, we have to have every institution from business to government, to NGOs, adding to the news flow. We are optimistic for this year, we believe that we can restore trust, and thereby get to societal stability, here are four to dues business, the societal role is here to stay. Remember, five to one people want more of you, not less on climate or race, or upskilling. Second, we have to show that the system works. We have to have tangible progress, we have to be sure that people believe that we can have fair outcomes that the system can succeed for all. Third, I give business great credit for moving its time horizons to longer term thinking. Other institutions have to follow suit. We have to have solutions over divisiveness, we have to have long term thinking over short term, momentary gains. Lastly, it's every institution's job to provide trustworthy information, clear, concise, easily accessible, fact based, we've got to break this horrible cycle of distrust. Jillian, with that I pass it to you. Thank you.
Gillian Tett 17:08
Again, thank you very much indeed, Richard. And as some of you know, I've had the pleasure of moderating the discussion at Davos for several years, which kind of gives me a historical perspective on the Trust Barometer. And I must say, I find this particular year's results, the most depressing that we have seen so far. That's partly for purely personal reasons, or the journalist. Some people might regard it as divine retribution, that the trust in media has tumbled so far, after all the years when journalists are criticizing other institutions. But it's a very, very serious social problem. As Richard points out, in terms of the impact of there's widespread mistrust in media, and information. But what's also very concerning is the degree to which we're seeing this cycle of distrust as gap between the general public and leaders, and also the degree to which we're seeing the bedrock of democratic trust, trust in democracy is being eroded particularly starkly. Sitting talking to you from New York, that's very, very alarming indeed. But what's also clear is the degree to which business is now in the spotlight, along with non governmental groups. So we have a terrific panel of people talk about this today and reflect on not just why things have gone so badly wrong, but most importantly, what they could or should be doing to try and address these challenges. We've got Oliver Bharti, the CEO of Allianz and the gigantic Insurance Group has been at the forefront in the insurance sector of pushing for measures for address climate change. We've got Becky Frank Edwards, who is president of Manpower Group, which is at the heart of a debate about what employees are doing and what they want, and how that's changing. We've got Enrique Loris, who's the CEO of youlet Packard, which of course, is an enormous company at the very heart of the American corporate world and gives a very good perspective on what could or should be done from the American corporate perspective. And also as a group that has a footprint around the world. We have Dr. Macro who's Director General of international center light from India, who can talk to us about the emerging market aspect, and in particular, how people perceive the current climate change debate from the perspective of the emerging markets world. And Dr. David Navarro, who Special Envoy for COVID-19 at the World Health Organization, who can address the question of not just what COVID-19 has done to our trust, nor in bad situations, but also perhaps most crucially, how the role of misinformation is or is not being addressed, as we all face the pandemic. So, different perspectives here. Very powerful, very valuable. And of course, we have all of you watching, and I will say what we're going to do is have a conversation for about 20 minutes and then bring in questions from the audience. So do please start sending in a question. As soon as you feel inspired, because it's easier to pull them into the conversation naturally, when I hear from you, and I want to get as many questions from the audience as I possibly can. But perhaps I can start with you, Oliver, and ask you, we've had the gauntlet throw down to business. And the survey suggests that businesses are going to have to grapple with societal challenges, if they are going to be trusted and respected. And their employees want them to do more, not less. And of course, this morning, we had Larry Fink, who came out with a clarion call for businesses to do precisely that, and argued that that wasn't a question of them being woke. And yet, we also had this very interesting detail in the survey, the RIDGID, highlighted about the fact that Republicans distrust business more than Democrats now. And much of that appears to be a backlash against work being regarded as something which is left wing. So I'm curious, when you look at your employees and your board and your managers, do you think you have strong buy in for more of a societal mission? And what does it actually translate into, in practical terms?
Oliver Bäte 21:14
So Julian, thank you very much. And Richard, great, really great survey that helps us a lot. Now my answer, Julian is informed by the fact that we were founded 131 years ago in Germany. So we're in the center of Europe. And we have something that's after the Second World War was called the social market economy. So the issue of stakeholder capitalism, that's been discovered in the United States of the last few years has been sort of part of the framework with all the advantages and disadvantages, of course, for many, many years. So for example, when I became CEO, we anchored employee and customer satisfaction into the financial targets of the top management cascaded that down to 150,000 people. And it's, it's literally a cliff. So if you perform very badly on customer service, or employee motivation, you have no access to your bonus pool. I'm not sure that too many institutions have that. So we a little bit in a particular place. So my answer is informed by that. The real issue and I think that's Richard mentioned it on the trust component and why people trust their companies, it's very hard for many people to understand what is a fact today versus what is a story that is not. So it's very hard for people to understand as you are targeted by social media, in particular, with you know, tainted information to lead you to buy something, even by the way, when you're on a website on a media outlet, you get stipulated based on what you read, before you start to distrust any source of information. Unless it's your family, it's your friends, and it's your employer with bending, I don't think that's the second with COVID. We've seen in a crisis, Federal Democratic bottom up systems fail to work. You know, as a former military person, I can tell you, many things were greater than democracies all the time. But in a crisis, you need different governance systems, you need different execution systems, particularly in the public domain. And we've seen also in Germany, and I think it's explaining one of the big drops is we failed in Germany, we literally fail to organize between central the central government between the state government and we have been under investing in really administration quality and infrastructure for many, many years in this country, despite the fact that we've had 15 years of amazing economic returns almost full on unemployment. So people are disappointed. And I think I would use that, also to interpret the results. The outcome is, from our perspective is for the vast majority of Europe, the issue is not whether we want stakeholder capitalism, but how do we make that work? How do we balance the realities of today with the need to change them? So today, in Europe, for example, 17% of our energy consumption comes out of sustainable energy. And everybody says, By latest by 2014, we need to be out of that. And it's very hard to do. So the people just do not trust the governments and the institutions to deliver the outcomes that we all feel we need to have, and we need to build it. So for our company. The point is, we have to be with the basics, we have to say, you know, are we the market leader in customer satisfaction? Are we the company that people want to work for? Do we deliver outcomes that are sustainably successful? It's a bit basic, but we need to have them delivered. And I think this is what people see. That's what employees see. There are institutions not all businesses, but many that deliver on their promises and others don't sorry, that's the simple job I'm trying to do everyday. Right.
Gillian Tett 24:43
And just very quickly, do you have any backlash against the stakeholder vision of capitalism at the moment? I mean, I can't imagine you have a large Republican base inside the company but do you have backlash from any of your investors?
Oliver Bäte 24:57
No, the investors however, are trying to understand how you could square the circle. In our case, it's it's pretty clear. And as apparently, Mr. Fink said this morning, you can run a great company without great people. So if you have an under supply of highly talented people, you better make them really excited about working for your company. If you don't have the highest customer satisfaction, that's why people go to Google, they don't go to Google, because they're so nice. They have just spectacular products. So we need to have make sure we have the products that people want to have. And we're coming from an industry where profits and distribution system and everything was regulated. With technology changing, that's no more the case. So I actually think we're over complicating matters, it is that both capital talent and customers are in under supply. And there's an oversupply of companies. And we will have a lot of companies disappear that do not address these stakeholders successfully at the same time.
Gillian Tett 25:54
Interesting, what seemed like a great moment to bring him back here to talk about the employees. And his extraordinary situation, none of us will be and we're actually they have companies fighting for employees, not employees necessarily fighting for jobs in many sectors. I'm curious, Becky, how has the great resignation changed this debate is a real? And to what degree do you really believe these, this data points about employees asking companies to actually have a societal purpose when they decide who to work for?
Becky Frankiewicz 26:24
Yeah, thank you, Julian. First, I would say that the pandemic has changed us. And it is the global us it is us as worker is us as company leader, the pandemic has changed us. And so rather than focusing on New Beginnings, as we start this new year, you know, we're counseling our clients to focus on some endings that we can celebrate. And all these endings are feeding into what you call the Great resignation. But what we would say is this great realization, this realization that employers and people are realizing that work is different in the future, we're not going back to the past, we're going forward to something new. And I'll highlight a couple of those endings, I will preview for the audience, three are truly global in nature. And one is more US UK focused. And so the first is this end of work over health. I mean, I can think of myself when I was growing up, if you came into the office, and you didn't feel well, you were celebrated. It was like oh, good for you, you're committed, you're driven, you know, you will be successful here. That was crazy. And the pandemic ended that and that's a positive. Now, if you don't feel well, employers and employees are encouraged to have the ownership to stay home, the end of family sacrifice, you know, people are now empowered to say I want to do the pickup line for school, or I need to drop off in the morning, I can do that and have a fulfilling career. And so that's another celebrated ending. This one hits a little close to home for many business leaders, the end of pledges without progress. And so employees, and consumers are tired now of pledges. We want action, we want realization of goals. And we want the report of progress. And it's something I think as business leaders, you know, it's not enough just to sign a pledge. Now workers want to see what are you actually doing? What are the steps I can feel towards that pledge. And we see a lot of that showing up in the in the Trust Barometer, where people are looking to business for progress, because the competence of business in bodies. And the last one, I'll say it, again, a little bit more US and UK focused, but make no mistake, structural change is the end of minimum and maximum wage. And so this concept of a minimum wage, or even a real wage is gone. It's a required wave, what's required to attract people into the workforce. And we are absolutely at your question on societal issues. We are absolutely seeing employees around the world and you heard it's it's actually catching up in the US. This is not necessarily new in Europe, but around the world. Employers are voting with their skills, towards their values on where their work. And I believe Richards up study, he mentioned that highlighted 60% of employees are saying, I want to work at a place that takes a stance on societal issues. And we are seeing that from the knowledge worker all the way to the blue collar worker that that is a fact. Well, that's
Gillian Tett 29:07
fascinating. I must say we're getting some terrific questions, right now about questions about NGOs, questions about how you change, you know, the sense of helplessness amongst people about change, about executive compensation, about trust, you know, so I'm gonna come back to this later on before I do. And, Ricky, I'm curious, from your point of view, how do you see the employee employer contract changing at the moment? And how comfortable are you about doing what the survey suggests, which is having a personal leadership role in addressing potentially hot buttons, societal issues, not just climate change, but it bigger issues around the s in the ESG? Complex?
Enrique Lores 29:47
Liliana and Rita, thank you for organizing these. I think you you touch on a few very critical points. First of all, I think all of us as CEOs know have a role to play For the values of our companies, I think our employees are expecting that our customers are expecting that, and our investors and expecting that. So I feel very confident doing that, both because he's our way to show what we really want to achieve. And also, because we are getting demand from our key stakeholders to that. And in the context of that, as you are saying, the relationship with our employees is also evolving, they are looking not only for a job, that will bring some money to them at the end of the month, they are really looking to participate in something that will be bigger than that. They want to participate and work for a company that they believe will have a positive impact in the world will have a positive impact in the society. And I think as a, as a CEO, my role is to make sure that we may I make that possible, that we define our goals, not only driven by what are our financial objectives, but really driven by what is the role and the impact that we want to have in the world. And by declaring them and inviting the teams to participate? I think we are changing the relationship and evolving that relationship in the way our employees are expecting it to change.
Gillian Tett 31:12
Right? Are there particular issues which you feel that you have gained to speak out on publicly which you weren't, say 345 years ago, as a result of this changing exploit employee exploitation.
Enrique Lores 31:23
The thing clearly, clearly, during the last few years, there has been a lot of changes in the world that have requested our direct involvement. And I would highlight two, first of all, is climate change. I think climate climate change is one of the major threats the world has got in the history of in the history of humankind. And I think all of us have to play a role. And we have really been very aggressive defining the goals for the company. And again, engaging employees to drive that. And the second that was made very visible during the last few years, again, is so a digital include a diversity and inclusion, we need to make sure that as a company, we embrace the values that we need to have to offer the opportunity for anybody to grow and to develop. And also we need to use the company as a platform to influence our partners, our suppliers, and and the rest of the industry. And in these two areas, we are driving a very big change. And again, engaging with our employees to make it happen.
Gillian Tett 32:27
Right, thank you. Before I turn to our sort of NGO representatives, I just like to quickly ask you three is representing private sector business. One question, which is it? You know, one of the other things that come out of the survey is a fact that trust is local. And you're crazy looking at community based trust. And yet all of the and Laura's utter Enrique are representing enormous global companies. And I'm just curious if any of you want to comment on how you deal with this issue about trust being local. And yet you're part of enormous companies. You know, is it sort of more local and metaphorical sense that, you know, I know who my employees employer is? Or what does that actually mean, in practice, or even Becky, maybe you want to comment on this?
Enrique Lores 33:12
Let me start, I think yours, we are all global companies. But we all have global percent local precedence. And what we do is, define what the global directions are. But then make sure that at the local level, each group, each factory, each organization, can translate that into whatever is important in that community. And these balance, have global and local really helps us to make a difference, because I think you're right, people wants to connect with something that is closer to them. And sometimes managing the company from the headquarters. We are too far from our people
Gillian Tett 33:48
are like, well, thank you, Becky. Yeah,
Becky Frankiewicz 33:49
yeah, I'll just add to that. I think that's exactly right. So these, you know, these big mega global companies have local presence yet also. Enrique, I would add that you, you can be local, wherever your focus is. And so I think there is this goal of CEOs to have intimacy, philosophically local to your comment, Jillian versus physically local, because it is true that employees are voting for who they work for, and the ultimate person they work for is the CEO. And so I think it is important to not feel like as a global CEO, you're too far removed, you need the local presence as well. But you have a tremendous, you pull on the heartstrings of your employees, even if you if you lead a large global organization. So I think it's really important to keep that in mind. And communications from CEOs do feel local, because you know, you're my CEO, you're not someone else's CEO
Gillian Tett 34:38
at all. I'm just curious, because, you know, German corporate culture is known for being, you know, cuddly and baring their soul in front of the employees and having a kiss and tail kind of approach to employee management. Just curious. I mean, how are you managing that and then we will turn to the NGO perspective.
Oliver Bäte 34:54
That's very good. Thank you. you phrase it nicely. So I want to go to the juncos both on customer clothes and employee close is actually very similar. It is the local company and the relevance of the globality to that. So in Italy, let's say if we're not adding value, because we are bringing Allianz capability Italy and make it the distinctive service for our local customers in Italy, in the language in the community works, it's irrelevant. If it's for the Italian employee interested, it's not distinctive, it's irrelevant. So that translation into the local community sort of KPIs, Julian, if I may allowed to use the Anglo Saxon contact, that's what really matters. So if you can translate that just the fact that you are global, big, rich, successful, is completely meaningless. It has to be meaningful, relative to the local benchmark. And that is what we often forgot in the past.
Gillian Tett 35:46
Right? That's fascinating. Well, I'd like to turn to Dr. Matter. Now, because, of course, one of the points surgery good pointed to was the importance of climate change for the corporate moves to try and have more of a societal role. And you're obviously involved in this very deeply with from the Indian perspective, but you're also very involved in trying to forge public private partnerships in that respect. And, you know, one of the other messages from the Adelman survey was that, you know, in many ways, partnering with NGOs is one way that governments can try and build the trust and the credibility and efficacy perspectives. I'm curious from your point of view, you know, is a perspective, Is there potential for business and NGOs working together more effectively in this area? And could both benefit by in terms of raising public trust?
Dr. Ajay Mathur 36:36
Well, Julian, the quick answer is yes. But before that, many thanks to you, and much more to Richard for this fascinating worldview. You know, this is something that I think the word got on to a few years before we did, I look at Leonardo DiCaprio movie, don't look up, which is exactly about this. People don't want to listen to the media and to the government, whoops, towards the people be in the climate change world try to convince and put forward for the last 20 years. Where does this leave us? Children? Your question, it's the nail on the head. As an international organization, the International Solar Alliance seeks partnerships with the private sector, six partnerships with NGOs, why? At the very end, the solar projects are things on the ground, they mean something to you or lose living nearby. They either provide you with electricity, which is cheaper, or electricity that is greener, or lower pollution or whatever. But the impacts are fed not only globally, but also locally, local NGOs, as was said, know the context. Local businesses know how the system works in the communities that they are working, whether it is local employment, whether it is the local connectivity, there were the linkages lie until and if I make, I think this leads us to a important issue. The kinds of collaborations that we're looking at in the future are very different. We are not looking at huge collaborations between governments. We are looking at collaborations between international organizations, which help create the kinds of models the technological models with NGOs with the private sector, make them happen. Once you make them happen, business models follow the role of governments is to create is to change the policy so that business models can be replicated, you don't want one demo, which an NGO does, you want the private sector to do millions of them. That's where a new collaborative model becomes effective. Short point as we move ahead, very clearly, you know, we need to snap people out of their comfort zones. You know, where they're happy, they can be selfish. You want to move them into a world where they are willing to look at the new why? Because in my community, this was done. It's my local people who did it. That's what moves us ahead.
Gillian Tett 39:46
Well, that's fascinating. And in many ways, you know, quite inspiring if one can translate that into action. But David, we have a lot of questions about NGOs. I'll come back to the questions about trust and NGOs in a moment. Before I do, prospect was asked you, Dr. Metro this, which is what do you think are the main determinants of trust in NGOs? Is it the ability to execute locally and have that demonstration effect? Or are there other issues you think that NGOs need to do right now?
Dr. Ajay Mathur 40:15
Do I think there are three kinds of trusts that matter? One, of course, is the effectiveness in delivering what you said, the key there is expectations, the expectations that the community has, and the expectations that the NGO provides. That's number one. Second, is the information that you're bringing in, because local communities often look to NGOs, as the source of information in my world technical information, but whatever is the kind of information that's a second trust. The third trust is in their ability to get the local communities involved. What they show is here are business models through which local people can get jobs. It's these three kinds of trusts, the three pillars of trust, which carry and years ahead.
Gillian Tett 41:07
Well, that's fast, because again, that throws down the gauntlet to business, and many of you are watching are from the private sector. And that's very thought provoking indeed, but I'd like to bring you in Dr. David Navarro, because, you know, you have been in the hot seat for much the last two years. In a very well sense, I'm sure the question ever wants to ask you a thread up front is when is it going to be? When is it going to end? Maybe you can say that quickly at the beginning, because everyone wants to know that desperately. But I'm also curious for your perspective on what on earth does a healthcare community do about misinformation? You know, is it something you're just gonna have to live with, or can trust in information from scientists, doctors actually become more widespread and trust in the right information become more widespread?
Dr. David Nabarro 41:55
Thank you very much, Jillian. It will end when he gains and it will not disappear, the virus will simply become something that we can live with, without it disturbing our social and economic lives in an excessive way. And that will take quite a long time, depending on where we are in the world. in poorer countries, right now. It's going to take a lot longer than in wealthier countries. In the work that I do with the World Health Organization, I'm often asked by people who can I trust to help me through all this. And we enter into debates and discussions. And usually, I'm told it is genuine, authentic experts who connect with people and deliver. I think the authenticity is really important. And after reading the Trust Barometer, I thought, what can we do in the health communities around the world, perhaps to be more authentic, and more trusted because there is a lot of misinformation around which is really hampering the response to the pandemic. I've got five things that I'd like to share quickly. First of all, let's be honest, all of humanity is affected by this pandemic. So a trusted response is one that looks at the whole world, not a subset of the world. We need to connect with people wherever they are. Secondly, it's important to adopt holistic approaches. People are the solution, because the virus is the problem. But we need to be able to engage people in all their capabilities. And we're seeing huge opportunities from treating people as the solution. Thirdly, it's important to display humility in the face of this pandemic. After all, it's a new virus. We've not had a Coronavirus before a pandemic before in my memory. And a reality is that there's an awful lot that is not known. The reason why I can't tell you when the pandemic is going to end is because I don't know. And if I gave you an estimate, it would be a really incorrect thing to do. It is important that that humility is genuine force. Got to be actually honest. And I mean, there's no substitute for it. If a leader in response to the pandemic promises, that there will be all restrictions removed by date x, it's perfectly reasonable to be able to say, I don't think that can be honest, because this leader doesn't have necessarily the knowledge to be sure that things can be improved by a particular date. It's obviously not honest and empty. promises or false pledges, quite honestly, just don't get us anywhere. And lastly, I think we have to be hopeful. After all, humanity has the most remarkable instrument up here, the brain, and humans working together can do with just about any challenge that exists, we need to be able to demonstrate hope, where hope is justified. So those are just some thoughts. And actually, I have to say, we are extremely exercised about the current misinformation situation, and very pleased to receive any advice that anybody can give us as to how we can help everybody work together to get on top of this pandemic.
Gillian Tett 45:41
Well, thank you for your message, which is both hopeful, humble, clear and honest. And I think you lay out a number of communication points, which probably apply to anybody, not just people working in the medical sphere right now. We've added earlier, we've had some terrific questions. And there's one question I'd love to ask you straight away. Dr. Navarro, which is, is this and we do really have some terrific questions from the audience. Thank you. Trust in government is tumbling at exactly the time when COVID has brought us up, arguably, more government and ever by public health campaigns. So does this tell us just trusting government, it's increasing? Because of the COVID response? Or in spite of it?
Dr. David Nabarro 46:22
I do know, I actually think that the reason why governments are in such difficulty at the moment is that just about every single decision that has to be made, is really difficult. There's always trade offs. And the trade offs are sometimes quite hard to capture. And to communicate. Clearly. It is my view, that it's the challenge that leaders face in truly explaining why they make decisions and what trade offs them actually employing. That that is a direct contributor to mistrust. And it may well be that a Nash, political leaders find a way to express the trade offs they're making, and to explain them to the public in clear language, there is going to be continued mistrust. So I would actually really answer that question by suggesting that it is proving to be extremely hard for modern political leaders to explain carefully to their constituents, the kind of trade offs that they're making and why they're doing it, simply because they feel they're lose too many boats when they adopt that kind of balanced approach.
Gillian Tett 47:32
That's why I'm saying I must say I strongly agree the issue of trade offs very hard and error of pick and mix politics were caught, you know, coalesce around single brands,
Dr. David Nabarro 47:41
how you explain a trade off in a tweet, Jolly hard, in my experience.
Gillian Tett 47:46
Exactly, exactly. When everyone's making making their own pick and mix choice about what they want to focus on, rather than taking a package. But. But I'm curious, that leads into another question, which is great, which I'd love to ask both Enrique and Oliver, which he says, as business leaders, how do we or you get high and positive engagement with society, not just with your own employees and customers, so that you can address some of the trends, the ridges highlighting? And there's a question as twinned with that, which is slightly less comfortable, I would imagine. But we've had a couple of questions about whether issues around high executive pay, and whether issues about you know, bad business practices, risk undermining what companies are trying to do in a more positive way? And maybe I can start with you, Oliver, about any thoughts you have on that?
Oliver Bäte 48:33
Yeah, let me start with the first question. And I think it's really, really important to reflect that it's different by societies. So if you go deep into the Illman report is very different bias societies, what people expect you to talk about, in our case, when you are, you know, having every third German as your client, for example, in other countries more every 10th, then the expectations are different, for example, also, by the relevance of the brand do why do I say that? Because we basically refrain from telling politicians on what to do, we'd like to have the dialogue, but we are not elected officials. But there are exceptions. So when it gets to health insurance, when it gets to, you know, mobility, when it gets to how do you invest? We have, we are expected to have the competence, we're expected to have an opinion, when it gets to how you run other items is more difficult. So when we started to talk about climate change, six, seven years ago, together with cop 24, a lot of business people, particularly the energy sector, what the heck are you getting involved in our business? So then you have to very carefully establish of why the heck are you standing, stepping into an area that is not seen to be your core area of competence, as the largest institutional investor in this country in one of the top 10 in Europe, then you have to say, Well, if the money doesn't really drive investment into clean energy, it's never going to happen. So that's why we have to do that. So you need to educate the public and then You can have a statement. And the last one, my only response is Allianz was voted to have the best executive incentive system in this country for many years. So I think that's okay.
Gillian Tett 50:12
Right. Okay, over to you, Enrique.
Enrique Lores 50:14
I think the, the way to really gain credibility is by integrating the objectives around, for example, climate change, or diversity, inclusion or digital equity, integrated in the business plans. We don't manage them in a separate way. For us, they are not a different set of objectives, our objectives we need to achieve as we continue to grow our business that will continue to develop our business. And I think this is a good way to show both our commitment and also to really gain credibility, because we report and we manage them together. And I think in in terms of, of executive compensation, I think that the practice that every company should follow, which is what we follow is really reward based on the value that is created. And these value really needs to be measured not only in terms of profitability, but also in terms of the progress that we make in our broader perspective. And this is what we do in the company.
Gillian Tett 51:13
Right, right. And I'd like to bring you in Dr. Matta to address a really interesting question here, which I wasn't expecting, which is this. In contrast of fairness, how would you address the issue of helplessness, the state of cognitive concern, where people don't believe that they can change anything and Apollo is to bridge this gap? And of course, it's an issue, which is particularly interesting right now in terms of the debate around climate change. So I'm curious for any thoughts you have about that.
Dr. Ajay Mathur 51:42
Julian, I, again, go back to the power of projects, projects that are done locally, because somebody has this feeling of helplessness, the only way to get them out of it is when they actually participate in a project, which makes something which does something, say a solar panel, which provides electricity to local households, meaning it gives them hope, that they can contribute that their contribution makes a difference to the lives of others. I know this is not a full answer. My belief is that at the end of the day, hopelessness is addressed by making the people feel that they are themselves useful, and they're useful to others.
Gillian Tett 52:36
So demonstration effect are projects that are close enough to be understood and, you know, part of the
Dr. Ajay Mathur 52:43
and the impact it has on yourself, that I am also doing something which helps others.
Gillian Tett 52:48
Well, as part of the great untrusted media, I can tell you that stories about, you know, any kind of projects actually make for much better copy and, and ways of illustrating themes than abstract concepts. But I'm Becky, question for you. What role do you think that NGOs, media and government have, if any, in moving off pastor great resignation moment, he may not accept the label great resignation? But, you know, do you think that the way to dress has is really about dealing with just private sector businesses and employees? Or do NGOs and governments and the media have a role to play as well?
Becky Frankiewicz 53:24
Yeah, it appears that we're going to need a level of collaboration and cooperation and innovation between all stakeholders, private and public that we have not seen in our in our past. And what I mean by that is, you know, we spent a lot of time also with universities, not just employers, we need universities teaching the soft skills that are now in demand in the economy, not just the hard skills, you know, around degree programs. We need NGOs and the partnerships, and I love I love the the Pope, we need those partnerships with business to help us innovate in new ways with heart and empathy and capability as we go forward. And so and for media, for employers to communication to be the most trusted, we need partnership with media. So if we're going to be the voice of that, how do we have the resources and the research and the unbiased view that media was formerly known for? How do we incorporate that into how we go forward as corporations. And so Jillian, I think it's essential to move forward, we ultimately we want the world to be prosperous, we want economic growth, and we want individual household growth. And to do that all of these entities are going to need to come together, because my fear for business is we're being put on a pedestal now that we don't have all the capabilities to fulfill. And so it will take all of us working and learning and acting together in new ways to I think, have the next S curve of economic growth and an individual prosperity for the world.
Gillian Tett 54:49
I will probably be on a pedestal there's only one way to go after that. But I'm curious that we are almost out of time. But I've got one other quick question, which is actually last question we managed to get through the questions. I want you to ask if any of you want to chip in maybe you can wave at me, I'll just pick out which is it. This is quite self interested question. What does the drop interest in social media mean for communicators? Should we continue to invest in channels that are generally not trusted? IE? Should you stop spending money on social media messaging and spend it all on the traditional medic media? Or on your own media instead? I'm sure Richard will have views on this. But I'm curious whether any of you have thought about what this really quite shocking. Results from the media part of the survey suggest for your strategy going forward? And re K or, Oliver, have you thought about this at all, or Dr. Mountain? And to getting the climate message out?
Enrique Lores 55:41
Well, I think you I think you have to because this is where people are expecting to get the information, I think what we need to do is realize how important empathy and connecting with people is. And it's not only about broadcasting information that could be or not be true. But testing using the new technology tools to connect with, with people in general or with employees or with consumers is really critical, and try to do that in a trustworthy and unconnected way.
Gillian Tett 56:12
Dark matter or Dr. Navarro from the NGO side, your views on this
Dr. David Nabarro 56:17
are just very, very quickly for me. Social media help us to connect with unusual realities. And we can actually be quite selective. So I think, for most of us, social media are not used to obtain trusted information, but they're used to obtain contextual information, which makes us more rounded people.
Gillian Tett 56:41
That's a doctor motto, so I cut you off there.
Dr. Ajay Mathur 56:44
Well, Julian, I come back to the point that you had mentioned, a project story is worth much more than an ideological story. I'm putting words in your mouth. What this tells us is that things that are built around, stories make much more sense. And consequently, anchoring the information on real life experiences always helps. I'll give you an example. At the International Solar Alliance, we build, for example, technical things like guidance, like standards based on case studies, which are essentially stories.
Gillian Tett 57:26
Right? Well, as someone who is in the story business, I love stories, so I prove anyone who uphold those, but we're almost out of time. But Oliver or Becky, any last thoughts quickly?
Becky Frankiewicz 57:39
Yeah, I'll just say I'd take a little contrarian view on social media, I think Dr. and borrow your commentary around authenticity. You know, being honest, social media does provide the platform for that. I think the challenge is, how do we get the right, accurate, truthful information into those channels? Because the younger generations I mean, I have three daughters, they get their education in large part from Tik Tok. And so we can't ignore that. I think we have to embrace the channel and figure out how we put truthful, authentic messages into the channel.
Gillian Tett 58:11
All every bad guy on Tik Tok?
Oliver Bäte 58:16
I don't know. But I think they are using all channels. I would like to differentiate very quickly between the data. But the question is, how do you get to decisions? I think it's very important to also go back how do you make decisions under under high uncertainty? We talked about decision making for politicians, when you have to deal with something that hasn't been there for 100 years? And how do you help interpret and tell people that you cannot make a perfect decision. But people accept that, but two years down the road, you need to do better. So I want to go back to the whatever the challenge is, and whatever the facts, we need to get to better outcomes for the for the stakeholders, and they will tell you whether they get a bad outcome. So democracy is not failing, because it's a bad concept is just doesn't deliver the outcomes that people expect. So we also need to stop promising things that we do not that we know we can't deliver. That's really the worrier?
Gillian Tett 59:10
Well, that's a very good note on which to end. I mean, as I said before, it's been a sobering study, a particularly sobering study for a journalist sitting in America. But I think that raises challenges for all of us wherever we're based. So I'm just going to hand back to Richard, for last thoughts and say, once again, thank you for a very interesting discussion. And I just hope that when we reconvene this by next year, it won't have got even worse. So over to you, Richard.
Richard Edelman 59:37
So, Julian, thank you for a marvelous panel. I think that the central challenge for all of us is to demonstrate real progress on societies for key issues, which are sustainability, equity and inclusion, retraining, and fairness, wage fairness in particular. And for me, I read the biography of Keynes over the Holiday and his economic consequences of the peace was very important book because World War One basically destroyed a lot of trade relationships, it upset the society in such a way as to, you know, destabilize the Middle Class the inflation that was ensuing ruin people say savings led to, you know, obviously bad consequences to World War Two. But we've had two big shocks in the last 20 years we had the great recession. And now we've had the pandemic. And it's unfortunately shown some of the shortcomings of society, the mass class divide the weakness of democracy relative to single party or autocracy, the fairness of dealing with those who are less well off in terms of health outcomes, we have to be very tangible step by step and say, we are going to retrain people, we are going to deal with the diverse populations and make sure that they have the ability to compete fairly, we're going to make sure that the developing countries have ability to, you know, grow their economies, while dealing with the climate change issue. It is down to business to lead in the next year. Ladies and gentlemen, it is very clear from our data, that it is the one institution that has the freedom and the authority to do so. But do it advisedly, don't say that I can do everything because you're not appointed, and you're not elected, do it with government, do it with NGOs, and please let's all improve the quality of information. The future of society depends on quality data so that people can make good decisions. We are all part of this. Thanks everybody so much for joining today, and particularly to the panelists and to Jillian who's heroic. Thank you