Every few decades, we have an opportunity to make a drastic change to the way we live our lives. We get a chance to design the building blocks of our daily routines, the infrastructure that will support and accompany us for the years to come - from the trains and trams we ride, the offices we work in, to the energy that powers our homes.
We need new, dynamic models for growth through the sharing economy, using big data to unlock new insights and adopting closed-loop cycles.
It's easy to be a short-term hero. It is very easy for me to get tremendous results very short term, get that translated into compensation, and be off sailing in the Bahamas. But the goal for this company - and it's very difficult to do - the goal is to follow a four- or five-year process.
It cannot be right in a world of increasing human progress - whether in medicine, space exploration or renewable energy - that so many people are denied the most basic human rights.
There are billions of people in the world who deserve the better quality of life that products such as soap, shampoo, and clean drinking water can provide.
Leadership is not a contest of likeability. Leadership often boils down to making the tougher choices. You are not in a popularity contest.
Sustainability makes good business sense, and we're all on the same team at the end of the day. That's the truth about the human condition.
System-wide changes rely on a critical mass of interested parties, all willing to enter into deep partnerships and collaborations, founded on new levels of trust and a commitment to action, not debate.
The commitment to put an end to illegal deforestation and develop sustainable alternatives for commodities like palm oil and soy, for example, is an inspiring illustration of what can be achieved when governments and industry partners come together determined to bring about transformational market-wide changes.
Why would you invest in a company which is out of synch with the needs of society, that does not take its social compliance in its supply chain seriously, that does not think about the costs of externalities or of its negative impacts on society?
Providing financial incentives for both local communities and national governments to conserve and restore forests also makes sense. It will put an economic value on these precious natural resources and drive the right behaviours from both government and business.
I believe that the financial crisis of 2008/9 exposed more a lack of ethics and morality - especially by the financial sector - rather than a problem of regulation or criminality. There were, of course, regulatory lessons to be learned, but at heart, there was a collective loss of our moral compass.
If we tackle deforestation in the right way, the benefits will be far-reaching - greater food security, improved livelihoods for millions of small farmers and indigenous people, more prosperous rural economies, and above all, a more stable climate.
Large-scale deforestation can be prevented while increasing food production through better, smarter agriculture.
We cannot eliminate poverty without enabling developing countries to engage more people in economic activity that use natural resources, and we cannot resolve runaway climate change without creating wealth in a more equitable and less carbon intensive way.
Business has a responsibility and opportunity to be the driving force for the advancement of universal human rights.
Taking proactive action on climate change is essential to ensuring that Unilever remains a viable business in the future. We will also reap the benefits in innovation, new product development, and cost efficiencies.
Africa's vibrancy and entrepreneurial spirit is un-matched. There's huge potential here to grow business, create jobs, and to improve living standards.
Permissible growth in the future has to be based on sustainable and equitable models.
If too many people feel excluded from the system and cannot access its benefits, they will ultimately rebel against it.
