- I think we have a tremendous tendency in society,
which is reinforced by kind of academic specialization
to kind of frame
many issues in terms of trade-offs.
And the environment was a perfect example.
If we're going to improve environmental performance,
we're gonna have to bear extra cost,
it's going to really impose the cost on business.
That's kind of the--
There was a religious debate about that.
Economists, in general, 20 years ago said,
"If you're gonna have environmental regulations,
"it can only drive up costs."
That's the only answer.
Why, because if you impose a constraint,
and the company is already running well,
then that constraint, dealing with that constraint
is going to cost more money.
So, economic theory says that environmental
improvement is expensive, and therefore,
it was fought tooth and nail,
by many very distinguished, very thoughtful people.
Instead, Jeff has shown,
has articulated very clearly what we now know,
which is that environmental improvement
is actually profitable.
Because almost all forms of energy,
unnecessary energy use, or pollution
is a form of waste.
And when you reduce waste you actually lower your costs.
And you can actually improve your quality at the same time.
So what we did in this issue of the environment
is we're in the process of changing it from a win-lose
power struggle between those who believe at all cost
that we should improve the environment
and those who believe at all cost
that we should get government out of the way
to a very different agenda which is
how can we work together to create this win-win outcome.
Improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions
while actually making businesses work more efficiently
and more productively.
And I've come to see how, in issue after issue,
it is the same problem.
We have a tendency to frame issues
as a struggle over who wins and who loses.
In my personal, one of the most
meaningful things I've ever tried to do
is tried to work on the issues urban poverty.
Poverty in America is concentrated in our urban areas.
Something like 30% of all minority poverty
is in what we call, inner cities,
or the distressed urban neighborhoods
in the hundred largest cities in America.
And there's been a long effort in America
to deal with that problem.
And one way of dealing with it,
of course, is redistribution.
We need to take money from some
and give it to the others who need it.
Another issue is preferences.
There was a big movement, 15 years ago,
to kind of give businesses in these locations
a sort of preference, in terms of purchasing.
And there's some good reasons to continue doing that,
but doing it very, very carefully.
What I think we've come to understand
is that, no, no, no,
you can't solve the problem that way.
The only way you can solve the problem
of urban poverty is really to help inner city residents
build successful businesses,
and get access to jobs that will pay a living wage.
That's a very different framing of the problem.
We used to have inter-galactic war
about these earlier solutions,
because they were win-lose solutions.
One group saw it losing and the other group was winning.
But everybody can agree
that every American should have an opportunity
and the assets to try to build a business,
and create jobs, and improve their lot economically.
That's a win-win opportunity,
that benefits us all.
So I think, I've learned over the years,
that we have to turn these issues,
not into a struggle and
a political war over ideology,
we have to take a very much more pragmatic perspective.
How can we actually create shared value?
How can we create win-win outcomes
where we can actually deal with the underlying problem
and actually everybody can benefit?
Jeff's company is a marvelous example
of trying to do that.
In each of those four areas
he articulated, that's the way he framed the question.
In health care, we are trying to do the same thing
in the work that I've been doing with Paul and Jim.
So that would be a perspective on
how do you think about these issues?
Now then there's a whole set of questions
about how to lead and I defer to the leaders to
continue that discussion.