Global Risks Report: the big issues facing leaders at Davos 2024

This transcript has been generated using speech recognition software and may contain errors. Please check its accuracy against the audio.

Carolina Klint, Managing Director at Marsh McLennan: It is really around public-private partnerships. It is about cross-country collaboration. It is about world leaders coming together, having meaningful conversations about these global systemic risks and what we're going to do about them.

Robin Pomeroy, host, Radio Davos: Welcome to Radio Davos, the podcast from the World Economic Forum that looks at the biggest challenges and how we might solve them. This week, days ahead of the Annual Meeting, we look at some of the biggest challenges facing the almost 3,000 leaders heading to Davos.

Peter Giger, Group Chief Risk Officer at Zurich Insurance: Common good needs collaboration, within nation states, but across borders as well. It's so hard to see that these days, because everything's confrontational, it seems. That's the challenge.

Robin Pomeroy: The World Economic Forum has just published its Global Risks Report, an annual survey on what experts around the world see as the biggest risks facing people, companies and countries. And risks associated with technology this year are high on the list.

Carolina Klint: We will probably have more cybersecurity breaches. Cyber criminals don't even have to be that smart anymore. They can lean on AI to figure out ways of being really malicious online.

Robin Pomeroy: Yes, AI - with all its promise, also poses a number of risks.

Peter Giger: Misinformation and disinformation. We have it on the list, so there is hope that we start to recognise it.

Robin Pomeroy: And what about AI’s impact on our jobs?

Carolina Klint: There will be an impact to jobs. Absolutely. But there will also be new opportunities. So I think it's more a question of waking up every morning thinking to yourself, what do I need to do to stay relevant?

Robin Pomeroy: Follow Radio Davos wherever you get your podcasts, or at wef.ch/podcasts.

I’m Robin Pomeroy at the World Economic Forum, and with this look at Global Risks as we head for the Annual Meeting 2024.

Carolina Klint: If you're not on top of this, you are in trouble.

Robin Pomeroy: This is Radio Davos

As I record this, we are just a couple of days away from the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting 2024. This year’s Davos has as its theme “Rebuilding Trust”.

We’ll be publishing podcasts during the week - including on the Agenda Dialogues podcast feed which will feature some of the biggest and best discussions from Davos, and we’ll be gathering lots of great interviews for Radio Davos, and for our sister podcast Meet the Leader.

If you want to follow what the more than 2,800 leaders from 120 countries will be talking about, you can take your pick of over 200 livestreamed sessions. Head to the Forum’s website and also look across social media using the hashtag #wef24.

As a curtainraiser for the Annual Meeting, here on Radio Davos, we’re taking a look at the just-published Global Risks Report, which gives a broad look at the world’s biggest challenges, and let’s face it those are the things we expect those leaders to be talking about there on the mountain in Davos.

Produced in partnership with Zurich Insurance Group and Marsh McLennan, the Global Risks Report is based on a survey of more than 1,400 global risks experts, policy-makers and industry leaders.

You can read the whole thing on our website, but here’s some of the top lines:

The top 5 short-term risks - that’s risks perceived over the next two years - identified in the report are, in ascending order: interstate armed conflict at number 5, cyberinsecurity at number 4. The top 3 are: societal polarisation, extreme weather events, and, at number 1, misinformation and disinformation.

Artificial intelligence - which has risen to mass consciousness in the past year as never before - is felt throughout the report. And of all the risks and opportunities AI poses, the risk of it being used for supercharged industrial-level propaganda is worrying many of the people surveyed.

Here’s a quote from the press release: “Concerns over a persistent cost-of-living crisis and the intertwined risks of AI-driven misinformation and disinformation, and societal polarization dominate the risks outlook for 2024.”

Let’s look at the longer-term risks in the report - which means over the next 10 years - misinformation and disinformation comes in at number 5 - everything above that in the list is about environmental degradation: natural resource shortages, biodiversity loss, critical changes to Earth systems, and extreme weather events.

To help sift through the gloomy findings and seek some optimism and solutions, we spoke to two people who helped put the report together, Carolina Klint, Managing Director at Marsh McLennan, and Peter Giger, Group Chief Risk Officer at Zurich Insurance. They spoke to my colleague Gayle Markovitz.

Gayle Markovitz, World Economic Forum: Okay, well welcome. Another year, another Risks Report!

First question is to Carolina. The report talks about structural forces that are shaping the global risks landscape over the next decade - climate change, demographic changes, technology, geopolitics. How is this changing the analysis of risks itself? And is it a very different exercise than it was, say, five years ago?

Carolina Klint: Well, thank you for that question. And, you know, I think it is because it is like looking into, looking down into a large bowl of spaghetti, because these risks are so interconnected. They are complex and they accelerate and exacerbate one another. So you look down at this mess of spaghetti and you start drawing, pulling one straw, and everything starts moving around and you're not really sure where to begin, what to start with.

It is a different landscape today. It is. It's never easy to predict things. And even the very best predictions generally come with caveats, right?

But there's no question that businesses today face increasingly complex risks and systemic turbulence. And that complicates both the short term decision making, but also the long term strategies. And making that connection between risk, resilience strategy, and also I would include people - those four elements need to be front and centre for businesses in terms of how to think about risk.

And this year the report looks at these structural risks, to your point, and the interactions over the long term, the next ten years and more, and highlights and deep dives into four emerging global risks that may evolve.

And it is around critical changes to Earth systems due to climate change or whether or not we will pass this climate tipping point at which stage we will no longer be able to adapt. And then is followed by the potential adverse outcomes, due to development of AI technologies and lack of economic opportunity. And then one that I think is really interesting in this year's report is also the potential increase in organised crime and illicit economic activity, which could move from a chronic, lower level risk into a more pressing crisis.

So a lot of different things and a big bowl of spaghetti.

Gayle Markovitz: I like that analogy - a big bowl of spaghetti.

Peter, last year, that bowl of spaghetti, we sort of coined the phrase polycrisis. What do you think's new this year? What are we seeing that's very different? And are we entering a kind of permacrisis, could we say?

Peter Giger: That would be a very human perception.

But I think Carolina makes a good point. What has changed, not necessarily this year or last year, but over time, is we have a much more intertwined and connected world. But if everything's connected, everything depends on each other.

I mean, once upon a time, people sat at home and heard about the war somewhere in the world, and it didn't really matter. Today if if there is a conflict, it will have implications on supply chains and it will have an impact on almost everyone in the world. And I think that is what's different.

Now, we hugely benefited from that interconnectedness. We should not forget that the global trade make the world a lot richer than it was before. Now there's a price to pay for that. And what we're seeing is now part of that price that you're paying.

Compared to last year, I think, look, some things have gotten better or something have have gotten worse. Clearly, we have a second hot conflict as we're speaking, very close.

So that's the normal course of business in my mind. And we talked that there was an almost unseen period of stability for the last 15 years, until last year. Now, it didn't feel like that. Trust me. I mean, when you go back and read the Risks Report every year, we had risks that we put front and centre. And every year we, we saw issues.

European monetary policies were in crisis mode during 15 years. Today we say, oh, that was the period of stability and how wonderful it was. Well, it didn't feel like that. And I think that's human nature. We're looking forward, we're seeing the uncertainty, we're frightened by the uncertainty. Uh, and so every year it feels like, oh, it's every generation thinks they have the worst outlook ever. It's human. But I wouldn't see a material change. And if you look at the long term outlook, it hasn't changed that much in the risk perception. It's the short term outlook that changes more.

Gayle Markovitz: On the short term outlook, one of the big things that we're seeing this year that wasn't there last time is the risks of misinformation and disinformation. We're also heading into a big year for elections. More than 4 billion people going to the polls. How do you think this is going to play out, do you think? Do you think misinformation and disinformation is going to be something to worry about?

Peter Giger: I think it was something to worry about a lot more when we didn't speak about it. Having it here at the centre of attention is a very important step in mitigation.

Misinformation and disinformation was around for a while and it wasn't recognised, and I think that was really dangerous and we saw some pretty bad outcomes from that.

Yes. I am concerned because we thought the internet would democratise information and bring transparency to the world. Pretty much the opposite has happened. People basically live in their bubbles and don't even recognise what's happening outside. And I think that is a risk because a democracy needs free flow of information. It needs people to get like a set of opinions, not just their own. Otherwise there is a real risk that the outcome, in a democracy will destabilise itself.

We we have it on the list. So there is hope that we start to recognise it.

It's a bit like the AI generated pictures, you know, now that people become aware that they can't trust their eyes, it's the first step because as humans, we usually take for given what we see, I mean, I see it, I believe it, and we learned that oops, maybe not. Not if it's on a screen .

Carolina Klint: And I agree. And I was just going to add that I think the connectivity to AI and technology-fueled misinformation and disinformation is another reason why it's so high up in the rankings, because I think there's a realisation that the distribution and the opportunity to do deep fake, to impact a much larger group of voters with disinformation and misinformation, and to influence them in that way, really steered the results of these big elections that are upcoming in this year and next. That is one of the reasons why we're seeing this really rise to the top.

Gayle Markovitz: Carolina, in your article for the World Economic Forum's Agenda, you talk about the rise of machines, and you speak about it with respect to how organisations can grapple with that. What would you say to leaders and CEOs? What should they be doing?

Carolina Klint: Be aware. I think one of the elements with AI is that it really puts pressure on timelines.

So I took a look at the Bangladesh central bank heist, which happened in 2016. And that played out in the following way. Cyber criminals sent out a phishing email to 36 employees of the Bangladesh Central Bank. Three of them clicked on the link, which meant that they had a pathway into the system. They took a whole year to just observe and look at, really map out, how the system was linked, where they had to go, how to, like, really work it. If they would have had AI, it would have taken them a couple of days. And also the same is true for the the response, because if we had AI back in 2016, the response would have been so much easier. You could have used an AI application to backtrack and see what has happened. What do we need to pay attention to? Things that the human eye cannot spot can be spotted with AI.

So I think looking at AI both as an opportunity, but also being very mindful of the risks.

So it has captured the attention, of course, of the media, of the public, of regulators and then business, given its vast potential.

ChatGPT is one year old and it's already putting so much pressure on how do we think about the workforce? How do we think about, I mean, so many elements that we need to be mindful of here.

And I think businesses and organisations could potentially face litigation due to copyright violations. We will probably have more cybersecurity breaches because as a matter of fact, cyber criminals don't even have to be that smart anymore. They can lean on AI to figure out ways of being really malicious online. You don't even have to be the sharpest tool in the shed anymore.

So that could build new digital pathways, AI enabled attacks, but then also strategic failures where companies rely on AI data to make strategic decisions that could go completely wrong.

Then there's also the implications for the workforce. As I mentioned, it's not just in manufacturing or fulfilment centres anymore. So as AI and advanced technology becomes more sophisticated, we are going to see the impact in both blue and white collar jobs.

So employers are going to have to rightsize, they're going to have to upskill, they're going to have to ... there's so many implications here.

So for business leaders, I think it is super important to really map this out to try and stay ahead of ahead of the curve, which is actually impossible. But you can try, try and keep up at least, to really follow what's happening, how is this going to impact? What do we build in terms of response? And how do we leverage the opportunities with AI? Because the opportunities are also vast.

Peter Giger: Can I add here, I think we're basically seeing and we're at the risk of seeing, the same issues that we've seen with many technologies - that we're hyping it in the beginning. Everybody talks about it. I think the biggest risk is that after a couple of years, the immediate interest declines. And what we're going to see is that the risks really then start to materialise as the technology perpetrates the whole economy.

I remind everyone, when when smartphones came out, bug hype, big hype, and then nothing really happened and all in a sudden they're all over the place before we knew it. It took a few years and I think the same is going to happen here. Interest will basically decline again because no, the world's not going to turn upside down in a year, but in five years, it's going to be in our daily lives all over the place and, as Carolina rightly said, full of risks, but also full of opportunities.

Gayle Markovitz: And for individuals, do you think we should be fearing for our jobs? Is that a question?

Carolina Klint: There will be an impact to jobs. Absolutely. But there will also be new opportunities. There will be new jobs.

So I think it's more a question of waking up every morning thinking to yourself, what do I need to do to stay relevant? Because it is a learning, growth mindset that we need to have. We need to be learners. We need to accept the fact that the world will continue changing. So what we learned at university that many years ago is actually, it's not going to take us to where we need to get to. We need to learn every day.

Peter Giger: Again, every technology has kind of made a lot of jobs redundant. But every technology has created more new jobs. Again, very important to keep in mind. It's all about requalifying people, giving people access to education so that they can qualify. I think it's the real challenge here, as it was with every technology.

Gayle Markovitz: And just to sort of shift a little bit, a question for you, Peter, debt distress. The report points to the potential exposure of particularly small and medium sized enterprises and heavily indebted countries to debt distress. So what do you think? What are the steps that we could take to alleviate these risks?

Peter Giger: Spend less? I think this is, for me, structurally, one of the biggest, and it's not even a risk because it's it's a structural problem that we have that we will need to tackle one way or the other and in the long run it will come back to haunt us.

We have governments all over the world massively overspending. We're afraid of recession. We are at non-sustainable levels. We talk a lot about sustainability when we talk about the environment. We don't talk nearly enough about sustainability when we talk about public finances.

Argentina is the example that we have. What happens if we consistently overspend and if a society gets used to a spending level that is not affordable by the economy.

And structurally, that's a big concern. And I don't even think it's a risk, as a matter of fact.

This is happening and the adjustment will need to take place, because it's not sustainable.

It's one of the things I think is underrated in the report in the long run because it's so convenient. Nobody wants to hear it. There is no easy solution, by the way, because many societies live above their economic potential. And that's not the message anyone will want to tell people.

Gayle Markovitz: We also see in the report that economic downturn and societal polarisation are kind of two sides of the same coin. Can you explain that a little bit?

Peter Giger: Well economic downturn, and it's connected to what I just said - people reach a certain level of wealth, and the higher the level, the bigger the fear of loss. Humans have an incredible loss aversion. That's well understood from behavioural science, and it's actually what's happening.

People don't see the opportunities anymore. They're only concerned about what they can be losing in many of, especially the Western economies. And then they basically revert to defensive behaviours or what they perceive as defensive behaviours, i.e. blaming the newcomers, i.e. the foreigners, and so on and so forth. It's a it's a pretty simple mechanism, but politically it works incredibly well, unfortunately.

The irony is that the behaviour leads to a reduction in wealth, because the trade has has brought this here, the free trade, and kind of restricting free trade will come at the cost.

It's one of the dilemmas of democracies. It's very hard to acknowledge that you have to make a step back. Unfortunately, it seems historically it only works if you have a serious crisis. If you're not able to adapt in a more like, smooth way. Again, coming back to Argentina, now a lot of people seem to acknowledge that it cannot continue like that. But how long does it take?

Gayle Markovitz: Do you think there's more that the international financial institutions could be doing to to help vulnerable economies, for example?

Peter Giger: What can you do to help? And who are the vulnerable economies at this stage? I think it's becoming interesting question, because the typical developing economies are often less indebted than some of the developed economies that are hugely exposed to increasing interest rates.

So I'm not even sure who needs the help, when push comes to shove. And I think that's the risk in the financial system.

And we've now gone through a phase where for the best part of 30 years, we printed money when a problem came. I don't think that will work. Again. It's not sustainable. And and non sustainable behaviours come to an end and then systems track. Again it's in principle the same logic that we have in the environmental discussion. It's not nearly as accepted I think.

Gayle Markovitz: The report talks about, it uses the phrase 'tipping points' and we hear that a lot with respect to climate, but it applies to other things as well. And you speak about that a little bit in your article, Carolina. How do you think organisations can enhance their resilience? Because there's also the idea that with these tipping points, they sometimes we've passed them and we kind of haven't realised. And it sounds a little bit like that with what Peter's just been saying.

Carolina Klint: We're moving, we're closing in on tipping points for sure, that that is a fact. And I think the report is really pointing in that direction. And I think hopefully it's a bit of a wake up call in terms of coming together and collaborating on some of these large systemic risks, because I think we're also at the point where not one single stakeholder group can actually address this on their own.

I mean, that's very true for climate change, but it's also true for cyber risk. It transcends country borders. It transcends, I mean, it's just so big, right?

I think in terms of enhancing resilience, some organisations that some areas that companies and organisations should focus on is definitely assessing digital and cybersecurity footprints. I mean, if you're not on top of this, you are in trouble.

I was actually really pleased to see cyber risk rising to the top of the report because it's been strangely lacking in the past number of years. I mean, we haven't really seen it in the top ten risks on a global aggregate basis since 2014, which I think is shocking given how we rely on technology and how we have digitalised since the pandemic.

And that, of course, means instituting best practice controls, guidance, stress testing, growth strategies, so on, really go through that.

But then it's about identifying potential supply chain resilience gaps because supply chains are super, super interesting. A lot of things going on there. It's striking a balance between a just in case and a just in time strategy. Because what we saw during the pandemic was that companies allowed more slack in the system, were a little bit more patient, not so focused on well, always focussed on efficiency, but a little bit more patient, I would say. But moving from that just in case to just in time, striking the balance between that is really critical.

Then using scenarios to really stress test investment and growth strategies. I think that scenario planning is always really, really good.

And then I think another element that we might not have seen as really critical in the past, but that I think is increasingly important, is building trust with workforces and stakeholders because there's so much mistrust coming at us. And I think having that as a focus area will just put companies and organisations in a in a better position.

Gayle Markovitz: Which of course is the theme of the Annual Meeting 2024. Peter, in terms of climate tipping points, in the past you've you've written a lot on the Forum's Agenda platform on this. What are we seeing this year in the report? Because it hasn't gone away, obviously.

Peter Giger: Well, it's consistently on the long term horizon. It's consistently recognised. But then it seems whilst it's recognised people are not acting because it's ten years out, we we have a long time. We will deal with it when it comes.

Well it's coming. I mean we had a record warm 20 23. There is every indication that '24 will be the same. We probably have reached the 1.5 degree. So I'm not sure what else it takes for people to accept that we need to do something.

Honestly, the best piece of my optimism hopes for technologically, for technological advancement. Because I don't see that we have the political will at this stage to do what it takes.

I think companies are doing a lot of things, and a lot of small technological advancements are made, and that's the source of optimism. But on a political level, there is some easy talk and sometimes not even that anymore, where people say, well, we can't afford, let's go for 2. I mean, we all know what happens: then we are at 2 and then maybe 2.5. So that is a that is a real building risk. And with every year, I think the likelihood that we reach tipping points is increasing. Nobody knows. We all know that this will not be a linear process.

Gayle Markovitz: Another thing we're seeing, equally depressing really, is high stakes armed conflict as a new entrant into the the top risk rankings. We're all aware of what's going on in the world. What specific challenges do you think this presents on the global stage, and how can nations work collaboratively to prevent an escalation and to keep trade moving and collaborate on things like climate, where we really need to.

Peter Giger: I think it's a comparable challenge, actually, because it's all about societies focusing on the common good, when today it's all about my individual wellbeing. It's all about me. How do I look on Instagram? How does it make me feel? It's never about what does it do to society? And I think that's the test that these armed conflicts may bring to us much quicker than we ever thought they could. Would we even be able to defend ourselves as societies? Who would go and die for our cause? To kind of put it bluntly. For me, that is, it's a dramatic wake up call for societies that have become very self focused and self focused on the individual.

And it's a symptom to the problem that we see in the environment that we see in public finance. It's all like the common good has totally gone to the background, and we need to find ways to focus on that again as societies. Don't ask me how we're going to do that.

Gayle Markovitz: Carolina, what about, you've spoken a little bit about supply chains, global supply chains and the kind of dual risk fallout from both geopolitics and climate. How do you think those risks can be mitigated?

Carolina Klint: It is... Well, first of all it's a total crunch for companies trying to move goods around the world.

So we saw a little bit of, it paused a little bit after the summer of last year when we were sort of catching up from the pandemic impacts of supply chain pressures. But then it picked up pace again. And now, of course, given the fact that Houthi rebels are attacking ships in the Red Sea, which leaves the Suez Canal and a very difficult alternative. And then companies might be thinking, okay, let's reroute then and maybe use the Panama Canal. Well, that doesn't work either, because there's been so little rain, the impact of El Nino is really putting the Panama Canal under pressure as well, because the capabilities are not there. You cannot move large container ships through the Panama Canal at the same pace as we've done in the past.

That means that companies that are moving goods around the world, they're in a total crunch. So what will this mean? Well it will mean pressures on, actually could result in increased inflation again, it will increase the costs for goods that we move around the world, it will increase the number of days it takes to move goods around the world. And I don't think we've really seen this play out just yet, because I think it's probably going to really show what the impact is around summer time, to be perfectly honest.

So I think companies what they can do is really think about what are the potential impacts of different disruptions caused by, whether it's a new regional conflict, whether it's something that is climate driven, whether it's a malicious cyber attack on trade networks, or export controls or trade barriers, which we continue seeing as well.

It is about doing proper vulnerability assessments.

It's not easy. You don't just uproot your supply chain. It's not easy because sometimes you have suppliers that depend on other suppliers, or you are in a very advanced, technical area where you have a lot of dependency on expertise. And that's not easy to just uproot and move.

But at the same time, we've seen some governmental incentives. So the Biden Inflation Reduction Act, for example, has helped move and nearshore, at least for the U.S., some of the productionm especially in the areas of semiconductors and electrical vehicles, for example. So I think that is an alternative route to take as well. So near-shoring, making sure that you have at least some alternatives in terms of suppliers.

Last year we saw a lot of stockpiling. We saw companies investing in building warehouses to really build inventory. But that has reduced quite a lot in the past number of months. And I think it's again, it's about striking the balance. You can't carry large inventory. It's just too expensive. But at the same time, you cannot rely on the global supply chains and the global trade routes, the way that we used to be able to rely on it.

So I think we are redrawing the maps in so many different ways. And global supply chains, definitely one of those areas.

Gayle Markovitz: Just to close, the Global Risks Report is never a light read, is it? By definition you're thinking about risks, which are frightening. But I do remember, Peter, that when I interviewed you last year, we ended on a really positive note, and I came away thinking, oh, thank goodness it's all going to be okay.

So is there anything positive that you could tell us about how we move forward?

Peter Giger: Well, look at 2023. It wasn't the worst year in human history. We said there is a polycrisis. I think at the end, the key is to analyse risks, to acknowledge them, to mitigate them, to take away the fear, because the fear is on the unknown and by understanding risk and potential implications, you can remove at least part of the fear.

Yes, the Risks Report by design reads very gloomily but I think it's our job to put that into context. AI is the classic example. I'm very concerned when in Europe we talk mostly about the risks. I mean, this is huge opportunities. We should not forget that this will make the world a better place. Yes, bad things will happen, but cars kill people every day. Nobody would abandon them, because they bring so much opportunity.

And I think that's the balance we we need to strike. Accepting that new technologies, certain developments, are full of risk, but they're full of risk because they're unknown and they offer opportunity. With some of the others, I think the environmental some of the socioeconomic, it's hard to be optimistic because where's the upside? Where's the upside in the environment? I think there is upside in the technological development again that offers, it could well be another industrial revolution, but it's a bit hard to see because the conscience is missing that we we want to move together. I think that is concerning.

Gayle Markovitz: And Carolina, as we head to Davos next week, are there any things that you think should definitely be on the minds of leaders who are coming together to try and sort things out and address all these risks for the next year?

Carolina Klint: Yes. First of all, to Peter's point, I do think seeking to understand the risks, taking the time to understand the risks, because with understanding risk you can actually turn it into opportunities.

But then the other thing that I think is absolutely critical is looking for opportunities to collaborate, because these risks, again, we cannot solve with just one single stakeholder group focusing on it. And we cannot solve if just one country focuses on it. It is really around public-private partnerships. It is about cross-country collaboration. It is about world leaders coming together, having meaningful conversations about these global systemic risks and what we're going to do about them. So collaboration, collaboration, collaboration would be my advice.

Peter Giger: Really, as Carolina says, it's the common good. Common good needs collaboration, within nation states, but across borders as well. It's so hard to see that these days, because everything's confrontational, it seems. And I think that's the challenge. And I don't want to talk about the glory days because it would make me seem old, which in fact, I am. But anyways, when there was more leadership in the world.

I think that's a bit that I'm missing - personalities that dare to tell people the way it is, that dare to tell their peers the way it is, even if it's totally inconvenient and totally unwelcome. And that's part of the leadership I'm missing and I'm asking people that go to Davos to provide to the world.

Robin Pomeroy: Peter Giger, Group Chief Risk Officer at Zurich Insurance, on what he wants to hear from leaders at the Annual Meeting in Davos 2024. You also heard Carolina Klint, Managing Director at Marsh McLennan. They were speaking to Gayle Markovitz about the Global Risks Report 2024 which is available on the World Economic Forum’s website.

And this podcast, Radio Davos, is available wherever you get your podcasts, and at wef.ch/podcasts, where you’ll also find Agenda Dialogues and Meet the Leader.

This episode of Radio Davos was presented by me, Robin Pomeroy. Studio production was by Taz Kelleher.

We will be back very soon, but for now thanks to you for joining us and goodbye.