Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the
opening ceremony of this Academic Year.
I'm Erwin Maas,
I am a producer at Studium Generale.
The platform for knowledge and reflection
at Utrecht University.
This evening,
this College Tour will be the last activity
of the start of this Academic Year. There
have been all sorts of other activities.
The awarding of honorary degrees,
for example.
The awarding of the student awards
and the awarding of the teacher awards.
And a big dream of the rector came true,
namely the premiere
of a new university song.
That song was written by Rosa Valkenburg,
my colleague
at the Centre for Science and Culture.
And it's been stuck in my head all day.
I don't know if anyone has heard
the song yet? Show some hands.
Yeah? Do you like it?
Great. Is it stuck in your head too?
Not yet. Well, it will happen.
To the people who haven't
listened to it yet, please do.
Before we start,
I have some announcements to make.
Whether you organize a wedding or
the opening ceremony of the Academic Year,
you'll never know
if the boulevard press will be present.
That's why I want to say something
about the setting here.
There are a lot less people here
than would fit in this room.
Everyone is sitting
one and a half metres apart
and I'll also make sure to keep a distance
of 1.5 meters from our guest.
Furthermore, this programme will be
streamed live for the people at home.
If you want to ask a question,
you can do that through
the chat function of YouTube and Facebook.
It will also be recorded
and subtitled into English tomorrow
so our international colleagues
can also watch it.
Okay, let's get started.
I think everyone understands
the concept of College Tour.
Together with students,
we interview someone
who is incredibly good at his or her job.
And today, that person is Feike Sijbesma
Let's watch a short video first.
Feike Sijbesma was born
in Nieuw-Loosdrecht, on August 25, 1959.
After he finished high school,
he went on to study
Medical and Molecular Biology in Utrecht
and then Business Administration
in Rotterdam.
He made a career within DSM,
where he became a member
of the executive board in 2000
and became CEO in 2007.
He decided
to drastically change the company.
It became a company
that focuses on healthy food ingredients
and sustainable energy and materials.
DSM became the most sustainable company
of the industry.
He dedicated himself to innovation
and advocated for women at the top.
According to Sijbesma, we are in need
of a total reset of our society.
But how do we achieve that?
And what are the responsibilities
of businesses and universities?
Please give him a big round of applause:
Feike Sijbesma.
Welcome. Have seat and get a drink.
We're going to address each other
informally. That's what we agreed on.
So let's do that.
I see that you brought something, Feike.
Next to you.
You might want to explain that.
I'm just always carrying this with me.
So this is your 1.5 metres stick?
It is more than enough.
-More than enough.
So if I stay here and you there...
If you stay seated there,
we'll be 1.5 metres apart.
Yeah, I was planning to.
-Great.
Welcome to my cosy UU living room.
How does it feel to be back
at Utrecht University?
Fantastic. This is the place
where I walked around and where I studied.
Where I was able to develop myself.
I had a lot of fun here.
So it's great to be here.
Right, because you have studied
microbiology, molecular biology here.
Maybe we can have look at a photo.
We just saw it in the video.
Yeah, this one.
Yes, that's the one.
-And how old were you here?
Twenty, maybe? Nineteen, twenty.
-And what kind of student were you?
An active student.
I was a member of a student association.
I was active in student politics.
I was chairman
of one of the student political parties.
I was active
for the association and the faculty.
And what were your standpoints?
What was important to me, and
still actually is, also for new students
and all students in this room...
It's very nice to be here.
Everyone is keeping 1.5 metres distance,
though. It looks weird.
What do I think is important?
What should I tell these new students?
Well one thing's different now:
there is a lot more pressure for students.
To perform,
to finish your studies quickly, and so on.
My studies
would take about six or seven year,
Medical Molecular Biology,
and that's how long it took me.
That is seven years.
That is unthinkable for most of you.
So there is a lot of pressure
to finish your studies quickly.
But at the same time, I'd like to say,
it's a cliché, but it's
one of the best times of your life.
But it's true, so enjoy it to the full.
And try to develop yourself,
that's what I did too.
This is a time to join committees
or be with people in your home or live
together with other people or whatever.
To experience all kinds of things.
How do you solve problems,
how do you go somewhere together.
Just getting away from your parents,
where you used to live.
This is the time to develop yourself,
so seize that opportunity with both hands.
Have fun, study hard, and develop yourself.
Drinks, study hard, and develop yourself?
-Yes.
Duly noted.
Did you already like it back then
to think about major world problems,
like you do now?
Maybe I did like it, but...
-Maybe while having a drink?
Well sometimes while drinking,
but during the day
I occupied myself with just small issues.
Who should clean the house,
who does the dishes, who has to vacuum?
These could also turn into huge issues,
but that's the kind of issues
I was dealing with too.
Or stuff for new students.
I was part of various committees
for my faculty.
But back then
you weren't the do-gooder you are now?
No. I don't think so.
-So that's not necessary.
Students, don't worry.
That will come later.
And did you have a favourite teacher?
Well I had one student,
we talked about that today...
I mean teacher. There was one teacher
that is still active here today.
It's unbelievable. I'm 60 now and
back then I was 20, so that's 40 years ago.
He must have 40 back then, Jan van Hoof.
The primatologist.
The world famous primatologist.
World famous.
And it was a real pleasure
to listen to him.
And after 40 years, it still is.
Most of the teachers of that time
aren't here anymore, of course.
But he was a very special person
and he still is.
What made him so good?
Because his lectures were so fascinating.
We were sitting like this.
Listening breathlessly
to his stories
and they fascinated me so much.
And your Molecular Biology studies,
is there something that you took from that
that determined
your world view in a certain way?
Yeah.
As a biology student, you get a lot...
Why did I start studying biology?
Because it fascinated me how life works
and it still does.
That we all have cells and DNA
and molecules
and that it interacts in a certain way
and somehow that produces a whole person
with emotions and thoughts
and intellect and so on.
When you think about life,
it's fascinating that it can even exist.
Children are born every day,
but when you realize the complexity of it,
to create a human, then it's amazing
to see that it managed to worked once.
But it happens every day
and it is just fascinating.
That's why I started studying biology,
it still fascinates me.
When you study biology,
there's one very important biologist
that you're presented with,
which is Darwin.
And Darwin has inspired me a lot,
also in the work I did after that.
Especially one of the more important
books of history, The origin of species.
Where do we all come from?
And at some point in that book,
he wrote "To my surprise..."
Comma. "To my own surprise..."
He was really surprised, apparently.
"It is not the biggest,
not the fastest, not the strongest,
but it is the fittest who will survive."
And the fittest is not the one
who went to the gym the most,
but the fittest is the one
who can adapt to changed circumstances.
And that goes for species.
It goes for organizations,
maybe even for countries.
How do you continuously adapt?
And that has always fascinated me.
Well let's talk about that career.
You joined
the Limburg chemical group DSM in 1998.
In 2007, you became their CEO and
in May of this year, you resigned as CEO.
You were highly praised
for everything you did there.
DSM became a lot more sustainable
while you were in charge.
And at the same time,
the value of the company was increased.
The share value increased
from about € 38 to € 100, I believe.
One hundred and thirty-five.
-Even now, during this crisis?
Yes, they're doing very well.
The prices are almost at an all-time high.
And when did you come to the realization
that this sustainable route
is the only right route?
I came to that realization
before I became CEO.
How should I put this?
When I got more responsibilities
in my jobs, I realized...
What does that even mean when you
get to manage a large organization?
When you're supposedly higher up
the ladder within the organization.
You have a bigger impact.
Maybe even more influence
and power within an organization,
that's all very nice.
At first, I did really enjoy it.
But then I started wondering what it meant.
More influence means more responsibility,
how you use that influence.
So I thought to myself:
what's the role of a business?
Why do I actually work at a company?
What is a company supposed to do?
And the short summary, that I learned from
my study in Business Administration,
is making profit. Sure, making profit.
It can't be that, I thought.
And when I thought about the economy,
I wondered
if the economy started with making profits.
No, it never started that way.
It started because one person
was catching buffalos and growing crops.
The neighbour did the same, but then he
said: "You're better at these crops.
I'm better at these buffalos.
If we both just do one task,
we can trade at the end of the day
and then we'll both be better off."
So they did that
and then more people joined in.
Which made it more complex,
so we invented gold and money.
And now computers,
because our money doesn't exist.
It's just numbers in a computer
that we all just believe in.
But that's just a tool
to trade.
And therefore a tool
to be able to happily live together.
So earning money is just a tool
to be able to happily live together.
So the actual goal of companies
that are participating in that
is to make sure
that we all can live happily together here.
It really is just that simple, actually.
And if your company
doesn't contribute to that,
you're just being useless, in my opinion.
So you have to make sure that,
if your company...
Sure, it's not a philanthropic institution,
you have to take care of yourself,
but you do have to make sure that you're
contributing to improving this world.
And that's
the real responsibility of a company.
So contributing to sustainability,
to the climate and circularity,
to inequality and all these kind of topics.
Not all companies do that, but maybe
we should talk about that in a minute.
They should.
-Let's talk about DSM.
How was the company doing
before you took over as CEO?
It was a company for bulk chemicals.
And I was not sure if that was enough
to make it. We might have been too small.
And I saw that- they were called
MDGs, Millennial Development Goals...
Now they're called SDGs.
I thought to myself, let's focus on that
and try to better the world.
Because then, in the long term,
people will start spending a lot of money
to make the world a better place.
At least, I would be advising the world
to spend money to make the world better.
That seemed like a good plan.
And in the end, people are pretty smart.
Not always in the short term,
but in the long term they are.
So they're going to spend money
on healthy food and on a better climate,
on a better living environment, and so on.
So if you focus on that
and focus the innovations on that,
your company
will eventually start to flourish.
And that will also make the world a better
place and everyone will be happy.
It sounds a bit simple,
but that's actually the train of thought.
So I transformed the company.
But I also realized
that it is a beautiful thought,
but I couldn't be right every quarter.
And a company will be judged by its
quarterly and yearly results and profits.
And at the start, I did say
that there's going to be a change,
that this will be a process,
but I won't be right every quarter,
so I can be reprimanded every quarter
by analysts or investors, because I didn't
meet the expectations for that quarter.
But in the long run, just believe me,
and luckily a few people did,
this should be able to work.
And that's the route we took.
In hindsight it worked out well,
but I didn't know that beforehand.
It could have went
completely wrong, of course.
Yes, sometimes I was afraid for that.
We've received
a question from Bram Kuipers.
He asks: How did you manage to convince
the Board of Directors and the shareholders
that a sustainable route would be
in the best interest of the company,
considering that that wasn't
the most profitable option.
So take us
to that meeting with those shareholders.
There must have been some people
that completely disagreed with you.
What did you do?
Well...
I do remember some uncomfortable meetings.
I can remember a shareholders meeting,
where they told me to stop
 with all that stuff about
the World Food Program and about hunger
and all that climate stuff.
And I was sitting there in this huge room,
thinking: So these are supposedly
my bosses, the shareholders.
But I said that it does matter and
that we are the largest food producer,
so why wouldn't we help-
food ingredients producer.
Why wouldn't we help
to solve the world food problem?
"Because we're here to make money."
I said: "I still think
we have the responsibility to do something.
More than that, 
I think you, the shareholders, who are
essentially the owners of the company,
also have that responsibility. Right?
You think the shareholders
bear no responsibility whatsoever
and just need to make money?"
"Because then you'll have to get rid of
me. But preferably not today", I said.
But...
So eventually I touched one lady.
I don't remember if it was at that meeting.
It's always a woman who helps with that.
She got up and said: "That is
the kind of company I want to invest in.
That is what I believe in."
And then everyone started applauding.
"Okay, I'm still in for one more day,"
I thought.
So I tried to communicate and explain it.
I tried to tell it.
I did tell the other members of the Board
and Investor Relations, who are dealing
with all these shareholders,
that we were going to communicate a lot,
even if I had very little to say.
We were not going to hide.
I was going to talk to them.
I was going to explain it constantly.
I would tell them that not each quarter
would be a success,
but they would be in the long term.
And I was going to try to explain a lot.
And the more uncertain I was
whether this approach would work,
the closer I would get to them. The
conversations wouldn't always be pleasant.
We also had some activist shareholders.
And people who were a bit more angry.
That weren't
the most fun parts of being a CEO.
And yet, because we held course and because
we held on to our norms and values
and the things we believed in,
I think we've made it.
The next question
is also about how you explained that.
This is a question from Matthijs.
Matthijs, where are you?
You can stand up. The microphone
will come to Matthijs. Right.
Mr Sijbesma, your ideas about
a sustainable society fascinated me,
but many people, homo sapiens
built from cells, like you said,
perceive the sustainable
aspect of our society as controversial.
How do you communicate the essence
of sustainability to those people?
Well...
Numbers.
A billion people in the world
use about 45% of all the world's resources.
And they're responsible
for about 45% of all waste.
One billion people.
There are almost eight billion.
So the other 50% of waste and resources
is for the other 7 billion people.
That is not sustainable.
It's unimaginable
that it will stay this way.
Because people in other parts of the world
will claim their part. And rightfully so.
So it won't stay that way.
When the wealth and wellfare
of one percent of the world's population
equals that of the other 99 percent,
or when eight people,
I'm not sure if we eight in this room,
have the same amount of money as
the other half of the world's population,
then this is, of course, inconceivable.
If we let global warming continue and
the Arctic areas really are at risk,
then dealing with it may prove impossible.
Do you think that you can convince these
people through more facts and numbers?
Facts and figures show this.
Just talk with the leaders
of Ethiopia or Bangladesh.
They now say: 'It's great that the West
tries to decrease CO2 emissions,
and that you try
to counter climate change,
but the most urgent help we need
is help with climate adaptation.
The impact of climate change in my region
is already so big that we need defences.
How do I survive on a daily basis
with the climate change that you,
by the way, have caused and which
is not yet affecting you that much.
But we are suffering now.
You may have some flooded roads
or basements but we have no food.'
So how do you convince other people?
By being aware of these issues
and by explaining them.
I believe that these are the issues when
you talk about inequality and circularity.
I mean, it's absurd
what we do in our supply chains.
The metals we have in our mobile phones.
They are all sourced in Africa, where they
are stored in mines, well-organised.
We use them in mobile phones
and then,suddenly, we say:
"Oops, these become scarce,
they're scarce materials."
What do you mean, "scarce"?
As if some Martians come in at night
and steal our resources?
They remain here, on earth.
Sure, but when I throw away my phone
we mix with all the other waste,
so we create huge waste mountains,
which are then shipped back to Africa
but in a much less organised manner
than we got the materials
in the first place.
And this is how we create scarcity.
So you need to reorganise the supply chain
and make it a circular one.
Otherwise, we really get scarce materials.
I can only try to come up with solutions,
and DSM has implemented
many of them in various fields.
It's my task to convince others
and the number of people is growing.
I'm also glad that more and more investors
who realise that things must change.
There are pension funds
engaging in long-term investments
and which become more and more aware.
We have to do things differently
or we can no longer turn the tide.
We get to the next question,
coming from Ivo.
By the way, the microphone is cleaned
between each question,
so please wait until it comes to you.
Yes. Have you ever encouraged other CEOs
or other leaders to act more responsibly?
And if so, how did they respond to that?
Yes, I've done that many times
and some of them responded very positively
while others just told me
to get on with my job.
To which I answered:
"I believe that this is my job."
Which they didn't agree with
as I should only focus on making money.
So some agreed with me and others didn't.
I started my career about 30 years ago.
Nearly 35 years, actually, a long time.
Who was the CEO role model back then?
Perhaps you're not familiar with the name,
but this was Jack Welch, the CEO of GE,
a major company at the time.
It's also interesting to see whether
the big companies of 30 odd years ago
are still the big companies today.
This week, Exxon was booted out
of the Dow Jones Index,
which is now mainly manned by
companies like Salesforce and Apple.
But Jack Welch was the leading example.
Creating shareholders' value,
that was the CEO's job.
The economist Milton Friedman said:
'It's all about making money.'
Here in the Netherlands, we had the
corportate governance committee.
They said: the power must be returned
to the shareholders, that's what matters.
In those days, when my career developed,
they were the leading CEO,
the leading economist.
and that were the
corporate governance committees.
And, of course, there were many people
I didn't get on board
because they still believed in that story.
But I believed that it was
no longer sustainable, it had to change.
Still, let's be honest, and as I realised,
this was not without risks.
Was I that self-assured of being right?
No, of course I had my insecure moments.
But although I was insecure, sometimes,
I was still determined.
Searching for the right path, sometimes,
but with the guts to just go for it.
A bit of both.
Of course, I didn't know it all.
Actually, during my first year as CEO,
Lehman Brothers went bankrupt
which started the financial crisis.
I remember that DSM even had a
negative turnover for one month.
Lehman Brothers was the American bank.
-Yes, one of the main American banks
and the first to fail
in the 2007 financial crisis.
Everything collapsed, nobody was buying.
If a company writes a negative turnover
which I could barely grasp
when my CFO told me this
because how can turnover be negative?
Well, already booked orders get cancelled
or they won't be able to buy next year.
You mean we have to revert them?
Yes.
So I gathered that a negative turnover
would not be good for our profit margin.
Which is the case, of course, so I thought
that I would break at least one record:
that of being the CEO shortest in office.
You became the longest acting CEO.
-Yes, but I didn't know that at the time.
So when you start out on a trajectory
you never know where it will end.
You have a vision, an image,
you focus on certain ideas,
but, in the end, you just don't know.
And that creates insecurity.
But it's the same path many of you are on,
with your careers, your development.
You can't predict it, but it's important
to think about what you want.
What impact can have in this world?
What do I want to do and focus on?
And then you just go for it.
Did you make mistakes
during your time with DSM?
No, none whatsoever.
I'm kidding, of course, I made many.
Certain acquisitions I chose not to do
but perhaps should have done,
which I thought to be too expensive.
Or we could have imlemented
certain decisions earlier.
And selling some parts of the company
as there've been so many changes.
This was hard, sometimes.
When I spoke with my predecessors,
who would say
'You're selling off what we built up.'
And I answered: 'Yes, times are changing
so I think it will be better.'
And then their response was:
'You're destroying our legacy.'
Well, no, I'm standing on your shoulders
and build on your achievements.
Because I wanted
to get their support as well.
So yes, I have made my mistakes.
You have to learn
how to communicate your story.
How to get people on board.
Yes.
-You've also won many awards.
Like De Volkskrant naming you
"The Most Influential Person of the Year".
The UN named you
"Humanitarian of the Year".
And, of course, the most important one:
"Alumnus of the Year" by the UU.
How does this appreciation affect you?
Are you still sensitive to it?
No. Yes, of course it's great,
when you work hard at something,
to receive the appreciation.
Everybody will feel it that way.
When you work hard at something
and it's received well, then that's great.
The best appreciation is, perhaps,
our employee involvement rating.
They increase year after year, showing how
happy and proud people are to work at DSM.
That appreciation, from your own company,
felt very fulfilling.
"Most influential person", by a newspaper,
you shouldn't take that very seriously.
Nobody in the Netherlands is that
influential, it's nonsense, just a list.
That shouldn't be such a big deal.
But sure, when people tell you that your
company is doing the right thing,
then that's very nice to hear.
-Yes.
We've already mentioned the shareholders
and the influence they have.
They predominantly go for higher profits.
-Not all of them.
Not all of them.
Perhaps not the DSM shareholders,
but many shareholders do.
So should this power be broken?
or should these shareholders be convinced?
First about making a profit, and whether
these shareholders are wrong about that.
They are not.
Who are these shareholders?
Some of them are greedy people, sure.
But, most shares are with pension funds
and insurance companies.
And behind pension funds are people who,
for 30, 35 years, pay a premium.
From their savings,
or as part of their income.
And in 30, 35 years, when they retire,
they want that money returned.
So they can start their retirement.
-Yes.
So the fact that pension funds want you
to perform and have a solid business,
and that they want you to make a profit,
is entirely justified
because the pensioners need that.
So making money and having shareholders,
in that sense, is not wrong.
It's a good thing because the model is to
earn money now and put it aside
so we can enjoy it later,
when we retire, for example.
There's nothing wrong with making money.
However, when this is done
in an unbalanced and short-term manner,
which is not in the interest
of pension funds, by the way,
because they invest over 30-year periods
to get a return,
so they don't look at quarterly figures
or always at the short-term.
You can also look at the long-term
as this gives you more time and leeway
to do the things that must be done.
That one side of it.
The other side is, when earning money,
including these pensions,
is at the expense of our climate,
of equality or of our society,
then the next generation
will also pay the price for that.
And that price may be higher
than just their pensions.
So I'm not saying that shareholders
or earning good money is bad,
but it must be done in a balanced way.
Balanced when it comes to
the short and long term.
Balanced when it comes to climate,
inequality, or other issues.
And I believe that
this balance is important.
And some people don't see that,
so they need convincing,
but there are also people
who do understand perfectly.
Another fault in the system that's often
a topic these days is tax avoidance.
Let's watch a clip from last year
in which another UU alumnus
gives his vision on multinationals and
rich individuals who evade paying taxes.
Let's watch this first.
You've probably seen the video before.
This was during the World Economic Forum
in Davos, where you've often been as well.
How do you see this criticism
on tax avoidance?
He touches on a very important point.
I don't think that there are many private
persons actively trying to pay more taxes.
More taxes than they ought to pay.
I don't think there's anybody who wants
to pay extra or more taxes.
But that's not what he's saying.
He's talking about paying less in taxes.
There's a general agreement
on how we distribute funds.
We've agreed on certain rules, including
our obligation to contribute collectively.
From our wages,
and also from company profits, etc.
That's a general agreement, because we
also pay for certain things collectively.
So for companies and multinationals,
having a great responsibility,
it's wrong to try
to marginalise and minimise that.
And that's the point he's making.
It's about fairness
and also about inequality in the world.
And I think
that these are important issues.
There's a massive inequality in the world.
And, of course, everyone in this room
is part of a priviliged group of people.
We have a good life,
compared to many others.
But we still have to try to address
this inequality and fairness.
And that means that you have to be
transparent, especially as a company,
about the taxes you pay
and not try to be clever about it,
via all kinds of constructions,
which DSM explicitly doesn't use,
like in Curaçao, or whatever crazy
options you can think of.
That's something you should never do.
And that's what he's talking about.
We're going to the next question,
which is asked by Marijn.
Go ahead.
-Thank you.
Mr. Sijbesma, in January,
you were in the talkshow Buitenhof.
You talked about globalisation,
in praising terms,
but you also conveyed your concerns as
not all countries, and their populations,
are benefitting from this globalisation.
As you said, this led to anger,
frustration and the building of fences.
Yes.
-You said that globalisation
should be more inclusive, both in
the Netherlands and internationally.
My question is: how would you see this
more inclusive globalisation?
And would be needed, concretely,
to achieve this?
Before you answer this question - as this
talkshow was before the COVID-19 crisis -
you could include the current situation,
and what it means for the world.
Yes. Well, you definitely watched
the programme closely.
You've repeated my words almost literally.
-Yes, a literal quote.
You're right. You're almost my spokesman,
I could not have said it better.
So yes, globalisation has brought wellfare
to billions of people and many countries.
But not to everyone, not to all countries,
and to everyone in all countries.
Let's take the central part of the US,
not our own region to make it easier.
But we will bring it
closer to home later on.
So the central part,
not the East and West Coast.
Steel factories, coal industry, industries
that have almost disappeared to Asia, etc.
Not much was done to replace all that.
Both coasts have profited
from the increased prosperity,
while the central part
hardly profited at all.
Ghost town, industries are gone,
no new jobs,
and then we tell these people
that globalisation is a great thing,
America has become even richer.
Sure, they say, the coasts, but not here.
Okay, but they should see it
in some holistic manner.
But you cannot, you say:
'My family, children, are affected.
And when it goes on year after year,
I feel sad, angry, dissatisfied.
And I'll vote differently and use this
to try ways to deal with it differently.'
I understand that completely, and there
are many countries with similar issues.
Where certain groups, be it geographical,
industrial, or income groups
never benefitted from globalisation.
And I think that this is wrong
and insustainable.
You have to make the world more inclusive.
So how can we achieve this?
By ensuring that those who are left out
are no longer left out.
So how? Taking the example of the US,
why not establishing other industries?
Why are these people not retrained,
so they can do other jobs?
Sure, but they worked their entire lives
in the steel or coal industry.
So these skills may become obsolete in
the future as these industries are gone,
but other skills may be needed.
By the way, DSM is a good example.
Before I started working there,
we had 45,000 employees
working in the DSM mines.
And when the mines closed in the 1960s,
we started a huge programme,
by DSM together with the government,
to "reskill" these employees.
To give them new job opportunities.
It's also why some important national
organisations were moved to Limburg
to create new jobs
and a new work environment.
And ultimately, in a few decades,
it has resulted in many new activities.
Many people now find jobs there,
new science parks were built, etc.
You can't just let it happen
and do nothing.
People will feel abandoned, they get angry
and rightfully so.
And it means that you must be active
and aware about who's benefitting
from globalisation and who's not.
And we have to help those who are not.
When I take it a step further,
to the COVID-19 situation,
then one of my biggest concerns
is inequality.
Inequality in the world is a fact and
there's a risk that it will only increase.
Because some people in the Western world
will lose their jobs.
Because people
will have to learn new skills
Because certain industries
are unlikely to return soon.
Because these time will see
a real breakthrough in online shopping.
and some retail chains
will also suffer in the longer term.
But also in a more global context:
many African countries are very worried
whether COVID will only increase
inequality between Africa and the West.
They struggle with climate change,
with locusts, and now there's COVID-19.
And COVID is not just a health issue,
although this also plays a role,
but also because Western countries
may buy fewer products.
So trade from African countries goes down,
and when we do less business
with that part of the world,
is a huge problem for those countries.
It also doesn't help to overcome
the disadvantages they're already facing.
In that regard, I once said -
although not all parallels are true -
that what was done after WW2,
with the Marshall Plan.
The Americans, who helped liberate Europe,
had only just gone home,
although many who lost their lives didn't,
and then they came up
with the Marshall Plan.
Not just to help Europe,
it was also in their best interest.
They thought: How can we invest and
help this continent that's in ruins
As I said, not all comparisons are just,
but I think that such ideas
to see how globalisation
is not reversed,
we don't want to hide behind our dikes,
although this may sound appealing
to us Dutch people,
but to make it more inclusive
through such initiatives.
I would champion that.
At the same time, you note that people
withdraw behind their own borders.
Then your idea may be very optimistic
because when everyone withdraws
such plans may never happen as you'd need
international collaborations.
I don't think
that this withdrawal is a good thing.
But it is what's going on,
also as a result of this globalisation.
Yes, globalisation is declining.
What we see now is caused as follows:
globalisation brings prosperity,
to many people and many countries,
but not to everyone.
And this angers people and so tend to look
for a voice, through political parties,
to demonstrate their justified anger.
So there are several things you can do.
You can try to make it all more inclusive,
to retrain people, give them new skills.
Things like the Marshall Plan,
from an international perspective.
But you could also decide
to close all borders
and defend ourselves.
That is another logical reaction.
But I don't think
that will work in the long term.
So I don't think that is the right way.
But I do understand it.
So I'd like to look for a way to maintain
this international cooperation,
Because at the core of the economic model,
we just talked about its beginnings,
comes down to specialising.
Trying to stick to what you do best,
and that's how the economy got started.
It is difficult to refute this
and to pretend like doing what you do best
is not a smart model to follow.
But we also need other abilities,
so that we in turn
can differentiate ourselves.
So knowledge will be of big importance.
New technologies could be of importance.
For this purpose,
we need to train people.
Before talking about the university,
there's a question from Ayso.
Thank you. I have a question.
You talked about equality
and that companies need
to take responsibility for that,
but I feel like the larger the company,
the more inequality,
because the CEO and the shareholders
get paid more,
but the lower-level employees
basically remain stuck at minimum wage
or they're moved to Southeast Asia or Africa,
where wages are lower.
A good example being Amazon,
where too much time spent on the toilet
is deducted from the employees' pay,
and Jeff Bezos is a multi-billionaire.
Talking about the world of tomorrow
and a reset after the corona crisis,
do you think it possible for companies
to keep growing without limits,
like Amazon, Google
or Facebook have done,
or should we change our perspectives
on companies' growths,
how much freedom we give
to companies as a society?
It's a difficult but important question,
about an important issue.
The power of companies,
of the large tech companies,
and how unbridled, although
those were not your exact words,
should that be?
Not unrestricted.
For good reason, we've even got
mechanisms in place
that are supposed to prevent the presence
of overly dominant players in markets
by means of law.
This is a good thing,
which companies should take into account.
When you have so much impact
and power, such as the tech companies,
you should be aware of your impact
and the responsibility that comes with it.
If you don't always live up
to that responsibility,
You rightly run the risk
of governments or lawmakers coming in
by saying you are not capable
of shouldering the responsibilities
that come with the impact or power
you have, and they will intervene.
Companies are generally
not pleased with that.
But it makes a lot of sense.
So large companies
need to be aware
of the influence, power,
and so on that they have.
And they should treat this
with the utmost caution and prudence.
This actually applies to every individual
that has an influence.
Power is a not the right word.
People with an influence on others
should treat this with care.
If you want to influence
your unhappy neighbour
and do their groceries for them,
it's just a small thing,
then you also have
a responsibility there.
It's about the same values and principles
that similarly apply
to very large companies
with a big influence or power,
a huge responsibility,
and shouldn't be saying
it's all about their products' success,
everyone's buying it,
and that's it!
No, the world isn't
as simple as that.
Let's talk about
the university's responsibility.
Talking about this big reset,
what is the role of the university here?
"Reset" is a word we use.
Since the Second World War
there has been no crisis
that has had such a big impact
on so many people
and so many countries
as the corona crisis.
And it's awful.
We're spending enormous
amounts of money.
Let's at least make sure
to spend a share of that money
on improving the world
after or during the corona crisis,
with regard to circularity, the climate
or inequality, all those types of issues.
Can the university contribute
to this? Definitely.
For me, the university
plays three important parts.
Education, research
and social engagement roles.
Those are the university's
three core tasks.
Some universities only focus
on education and research,
but I think universities
also have a social role to fulfil.
So universities could consider
how, in their education programmes,
these kinds of philosophies,
today's discussion topics,
matter to their students,
and how students could contribute,
how students can further develop
their own viewpoints,
in collaboration with teachers.
I'd like to now ask a question
that I received on YouTube
from Reinier Strover
that's exactly about this topic.
He says: 'What responsibilities do
business studies teachers have
in order to make businesses
more sustainable
and how well are they
living up to these?'
A very good question.
I have been involved in many
business studies programmes.
They have changed slightly,
but most business studies programmes
still only focus on Finance,
Economics, Technology, Innovation,
Management, Leadership,
those are the core courses.
These can be integrated
into some sort of vision
for improving the world,
but these elements are at the core
of business studies programmes.
And when really you think about it,
like we said in the beginning
actually the core of business studies
is nothing like that.
The core of business studies,
in my opinion,
should be: What is the position
of economics within our society?
How did our economy come about?
What should our economy's purpose be?
What should it be like?
That should be an important topic
in business and economics programmes,
or perhaps in every programme.
What is the position of science
within our society?
How can we change this world
or contribute to it?
So the university could,
within the context of education,
but also in the context of research
and its social engagement,
make public the university's
perspectives on things.
Should the university do this
more actively than at present?
Universities have always done this,
for which my sincere compliments
to this university and your Executive Board,
Supervisory Board and Board of Deans,
of whom I know that they
are very actively involved in this.
That's what I love
about Utrecht University,
which of course stole my heart
back in the day, my alma mater.
The university enabled me
to become the person I am now,
so I'll always humbly
thank the university for that.
But of course Utrecht University,
just like every other university,
could think about how they
could be contributing even more.
We are working together with people
who are at the threshold of their lives,
students who are
just starting to evolve,
who want to use their efforts,
their brainpower and so on
to evolve themselves, but hopefully
also to contribute to this society.
You could enter into this discussion,
and use all of that information.
Not getting the most out of that
would be an absolute waste.
Do you think education
should receive higher funding?
Today was the opening
of the new academic year.
There's also an action committee
for academia
who stand for higher basic funding
and better working conditions.
They've spoken out today as well,
saying they fundamentally need more funding.
Do you agree with that?
I'm not going to make any statements,
because I don't have a clear overview.
About universities, colleges
or primary education,
because every type of education
could be improved.
I want to be cautious in highlighting
just one specific type of education
the university, at the expense of
other types, that wouldn't be right.
But in general,
investing in education,
investing in future generations,
is I think one of the best and
most fruitful things a country could do.
Making sure that future generations
are prepared and well-educated.
Referring back to your comment
on globalisation,
making sure that future generations
have the skills and the knowledge
needed for future jobs.
A while back, I saw a video,
whether true or not,
that said: 'Over 25 years, this generation
will have...
Over 25 years, half of this generation
will have jobs that don't exist yet.'
So 25 years from now,
half of you guys will have a job
that nobody has heard of yet,
that doesn't exist yet.
I'm not entirely sure about the numbers,
but there must be some truth in it.
And that means we need
to provide this generation
with the right skills needed
for those types of future jobs.
I wanted to ask you.
There are a lot of students here,
and I hope many are watching from home.
What would you like to say to
students who are worried about the future?
We are in the middle
of an enormous crisis.
How will this affect their careers?
What advice would you like to give them?
Don't worry too much,
I would advise first.
Also try to use this time
to have fun, first of all.
Secondly, try to work hard
and study hard,
because this generation
is under more pressure
than there was on graduates
back in my day, as to say.
I always end up arguing with my wife,
for these are also "my days".
My days aren't over yet.
But in the past.
So yeah, you should work hard.
But also try to evolve yourself
by doing other things.
To grow, get to know yourself,
your own strengths and weaknesses.
Your own sensitivities,
your own fears.
Try to figure out who you are.
And still try to...
How should I say this?
Try to develop an understanding,
perhaps the most
important word right now.
Try to develop an understanding
of yourself, of who you are.
Try to develop an understanding
of society, its future and present.
And try to combine that understanding
with the understanding you have of yourself.
Who you are. What you're good
or bad at. Your passions.
What matters to you,
and what doesn't.
Try to combine that
insight into who you are
with your understanding
of our changing society.
And try to unite your understanding
of yourself and of society
for finding a job, a career,
to create stepping stones
that align the two.
So you can do things you enjoy,
and you might be good at.
For many people, that
comes down to the same thing.
And of course, when you are
passionate about something,
you will find your way.
Even in these unprecedented times
that, for students and everybody really,
but for students also,
unprecedented times.
Sitting in your room,
watching a lecture on a screen.
Having seminars in some kind of
Zoom or Teams meeting.
Watching your screen yet again.
Then you go and see the same
roommates you've seen all day and think...
It depends on your roommates
of course,
but you might want to be
around someone else for a change.
I completely understand.
Though times.
But try to develop an understanding.
And follow your passion.
I think I saw this discussion
somewhere.
Should we encourage or force students
to go and do the things
that society needs right now?
To me, that's a very scary approach.
I would never want to force or encourage
someone to enter a field of study
where jobs are in demand
right now.
At a certain point in your life,
you need to follow your heart.
If something means a great deal
to you, you should take that path.
That's not to say that you should
go about this blindly.
In some fields of studies
the chance of success is higher.
But follow your heart
and your own viewpoints.
Go and do the things
that you want to do in life.
That's the most important thing
I can say to young people,
but to older people as well.
Go and do what you
want to do in your life.
Someday it will be over,
so make sure you enjoyed it.
Finally, after leaving DSM you became
the national government's corona advisor.
That has ended now.
-What are your plans?
It's not like I've got nothing left to do.
One of the reasons why, after six months
of volunteering as corona advisor,
that it was time to quit
and to hand it over to the ministries.
Or else it won't do.
And I also want to spend time
on the things I am responsible for now.
And those are mostly related
to the climate and food.
I am working on a huge initiative
centred on
making Africa self-sufficient
in its own food production.
By producing locally,
processing locally,
for the local population,
without any import from the West.
That's the solution, I think.
Together with the former
UN Secretary-General,
I try to move climate adaptation
into the next phase.
I'm going to be spending lots of time
on initiatives like that.
Great. Good luck with that.
We've got one thing left to do tonight.
That cabinet over there
is filled with wonderful objects.
You get to choose one of them.
So I'd like to ask you
to have a look at the cabinet.
To see what's in there,
and tell us about it.
And pick one object
to take home with you.
For free, a present?
Yes, a present, from Utrecht University.
It should be worth less
than 50 euros, first of all.
A picture of myself.
That would be the last thing I'd pick.
A plant. As a biologist,
that appeals to me.
And some books, I see.
This is a brief history of the Netherlands.
By James Kennedy,
from Utrecht University.
Can I?
-Of course you can take that one.
Then I will take this book,
for the following reason.
If it's a present from the university,
it should be an intellectual present.
It should be a book,
with letters and paper.
Because that to me
symbolises the university.
And by someone from the university
describing the entire history
of the Netherlands in just one book,
what could be better than that?
Thank you for this.
I hope you enjoy the book
thank you so much for being here.
Please give Feike Sijbesma
a big round of applause.
Thank you.
And thank you for having me,
from a distance,
and through the video and screens.
It's such a pleasure to be
here at Utrecht University.
Every university in the Netherlands
is fantastic.
But one of them,
don't tell the others,
is a little more amazing than the others,
Utrecht University, thank you.
Thank you, Feike.
This is the end of the opening
of the new academic year.
I hope the people at home
and in the audience have enjoyed it.
I would like to promote something.
If you would like to continue
discussing the world of tomorrow,
you are of course very welcome
at Studium Generale.
Please visit our website sg.uu.nl
to find our programme
for the coming months.
Thank you all
and until next time. Bye!
