Towards Trustworthy and Responsible Leadership

Article originally published on Horasis.

On March 18, 2021, Horasis held its second digital Extraordinary Meeting, under the theme Rebuilding Trust. Thanks to the incredible work of Dr. Frank-Jürgen Richter, founder and chairman of Horasis, 1100 of the most senior members of the Visions Community – including several heads of governments and key ministers – offered the opportunity to shape the world’s agenda.

I was honored to be able to join an incredible panel, chaired by Metin Guvener with fellow-panelists such as Fahim Naim, Morgan Parnis, and Gary Shapiro, to discuss a vital theme for today’s societies: trustworthy and responsible leadership.

Many nations have noted reduced trust in the ability of political leaders to address the challenges crucial to our daily lives and our future. Cynicism about political leaders is running high, particularly when new pressures arising from globalization are making the involvement of government more important than ever. So how do we install trustworthy and responsible leaders with the inspiration and power to crack the issues that our nations need to solve?

I am pleased to share my contribution to the panel as well as the full session in the video below.

Metin: What is your personal experience and vision of leadership within the transforming world of families, business, politics, and communities locally and internationally?

Manuela: I have spent the past 20 years mostly in financial services, banking, media, and wealth management in Milan, London, and Zurich. Today I’m a consultant to the private and public sector on narratives and strategies around macroeconomic trends, social change, and digital transformation.

I’d like to briefly look back at previous generations. In the aftermath of the Second World War, my grandfather saw his country, Italy, transformed from an agriculture-based economy seriously affected by the world wars, into one of the most advanced and industrialized nations in the world, a leading G7 country. He went from losing two of his baby sisters to the Spanish flu to being able to thoroughly vaccinate his two daughters from birth. From his father’s horses to owning two good cars.

That generation had a very important skill. They had learnt to adapt to any life circumstance, they adapted to change, they trusted competence and institutions, they also had no option. Instead, what we see today at organizations or governments, or among citizens, is often a lack of trust and resistance to change. Experts measure this attitude in AQ, adaptability quotient, and our current generations are not scoring very high.

One reason for this, especially in recent years, can be found in the way information is shared, communicated, and consumed.

During the financial crisis of 2007-2008, I was working in London, the heart of the European crisis at the time.

The financial crisis didn’t merely have disastrous economic consequences, it also negatively impacted the public’s trust in the financial world, in corporations, and in governments, tarnishing their reputation and, as many believe, leading to the strong winds of populism we’ve seen in the past few years.

What went wrong? And what is still going wrong in today’s crisis?

The ability that was most tragically and dramatically lacking during the 2008 crisis – and is still somewhat lacking – was the ability to communicate specifically of industry and governments; to communicate the nature of the problem, what was at stake in terms of risks, and thus why, in America alone, it was necessary to spend $700 billion of taxpayers’ money to solve the problem.

In the light of digital transformation, current information and communication models must be adapted to meet the growing needs of a public – citizens, professionals, politicians, and academia – that has access to ever-increasing amounts of information, and often of fake news, but regularly little clarity and perspective on numerous issues.

In my view, trustworthy and responsible leadership is tied to strategic communication, and is vital for industry and governments. Not only does it have to convey goals, intentions and strategies to stakeholders and society, but it also needs to educate the general public.

Responsible leaders are unbiased thought-leaders to the extent possible on certain topics and must work to reduce fake news and speculation: governments and the industry have a moral duty to provide context and clarity by working together and keeping communication channels open with all stakeholders, including the media and influencers, to create mutual trust.

In the next 10 years, our democracies and the world at large have plenty at stake. It is a decade in which we will set and achieve crucial goals.

A new and strong model of responsible leadership, along with talent and excellence, will help to deal with the most urgent issues, in order to generate new waves of more sustainable and fair growth, capitalizing on essential emotional intelligence and people’s adaptability.

Metin: Mentorship has an important role in everybody’s life, and I know it is particularly close to your heart – can you please elaborate on how it has featured in your life both as mentee and mentor?

Manuela: Mentorship taught me both who I wanted to be and who I absolutely did not want to become. I had both examples of successful, emphatic mentors who were great leaders with a high EQ, and examples of arrogance. As a mentor myself, I have tried to use honesty and transparency as a baseline to show empathy, to tailor my awareness and understanding of situations based on how my mentee was experiencing them.

Mentorship has transformed me in the sense that it helped to see clearly what type of leaders are de facto able to have a positive impact on people, on society, and on our democracies, and those that were extremely damaging. In this sense, it has shaped my understanding of the bigger picture and the importance of what we call “soft skills”, which are the skills that are at the foundation of our societies, our governments, businesses, and that will get us through the next decade.

The popular press focuses on charisma as the mark of leadership, but history is full of charismatic leaders who attracted lots of followers and then led them in manipulative ways. 

Metin: Books played a deep and foundational role in your early life as a reader and for some of you, in later life as a writer – what book would you like to share with us today?

Manuela: As a writer myself, I get incredible inspiration from what I read. I have two recommendations, on very different themes.

 - “Quiet, the power of introverts”

By Susan Cain. The book raises awareness on how modern Western culture misunderstands and undervalues the traits and capabilities of introverted people, leading to “a colossal waste of talent, energy and happiness”.

In Western cultures, extroversion dominates and introversion is viewed as inferior. The book outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each temperament, citing research in biology, psychology, neuroscience, and evolution to demonstrate that introversion is common and normal, noting that many of humankind’s most creative individuals and distinguished leaders were introverts. Cain urges changes at the workplace, in schools, and in parenting.

- “The Entrepreneurial State: debunking public vs. private sector myths”

By Mariana Mazzucato, Professor of Economics of Innovation & Public Value at UCL. The book talks about the role of governments as drivers of excellence and innovation and describes the role of the public sector as a “top-choice investor” in the history of technological change. There is a plethora of examples of such, often in the US: just think about the favorable setting in which Apple itself was born and has become the colossus we know today.

In Italy, an important example in this sense is the Center for Convergent Technologies of Genoa, created by the Ministry of Finance 25 years ago. A great, high-class research center that has attracted and continues to attract foreigners and Italians, including returning expats.

Today, a comparable example may be the Human Technopole of Milan, the new Italian research institute for life sciences, created by the Italian government in synergy with the private sector, with the aim to become a leading European center of research, attracting national and international talent.

Metin: Having worked with a vast array of clients who have benefited from your strategic advice, vision, value, and voice, can you please explain your driving value proposition to organizations who want to transform their leadership in a trustworthy and responsible manner?

Manuela: I tailor business strategies and narratives at the intersection of macroeconomic trends, social change, and digital transformation, raising awareness and engagement for organizations, governments, and societies on their impact.

My key impact on organizations is helping them build trust as social capital. The social, economic, and environmental challenges of this decade require new approaches to leadership and responsibility. I support them in framing this need, creating the narrative and engagement, and supporting the latter with ad hoc strategies.

Some argue that those in authority positions within an organizational pyramid are the leaders of the organization, and that all that is needed to lead is for the followers to respect the authority of the position. This conception worked in the past, but works less and less in today’s organizations. We are seeing the decline of authority and the rise of trust as an organizing principle. To be effective today, strategic leaders need to combine trust with expertise and emotional quotient.

The definition of trust provided by the OECD Guidelines is “a person’s belief that another person or institution will act consistently with their expectations of positive behavior”. Trust matters for the well-being of people and the country where they live: there is strong evidence on its role in supporting social and economic relations. Trust between individuals and trust in institutions determine economic growth, social cohesion, and well-being. These are crucial components for policy reforms and the sustainability of political systems as well as industry.

Metin: What do you think is a characteristic that great leaders share, and conversely, a habit to avoid so you don’t become a leader who is not expressing full potential?

Great leaders leverage emotion and intuition, showing compassion, humbleness, and openness. They listen and empower, promoting common goals by inspiring a shared vision of sustainable prosperity. Moreover, they make digitalization and innovation truly happen, they innovate responsibly through emerging technology, they capitalize on expertise, intellect, and insight, and they are the first ones to embrace continuous learning and knowledge exchange.

A habit to avoid? I’ll quote Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic and pick the most dangerous: toxic charisma.

In times of multimedia politics, leadership is commonly downgraded to just another form of entertainment, and charisma seems a must to keep the audience engaged. However, the short-term benefits of charisma are often neutralized by its long-term consequences.

- Charisma dilutes judgment: There are only three ways to influence others: force, reason, or charm. Force and reason are rational, charm is not. Charm is based on emotional manipulation and, as such, it has the ability to trump any rational assessment and bias our views. 

- Charisma is addictive and research proves that it fosters collective narcissism. Especially in the era of social media.

 Experts recommend upgrading to a more rational and uncontaminated leadership model by:

1. Selecting leaders using scientifically validated assessment tools, instead of relying on “chemistry” or intuition. For example, narcissists tend to perform well in interviews, and confidence display is often mistaken for competence.

2. Fine-tuning politicians’ media exposure and airtime, which often make charismatic candidates look more competent than they actually are. This has nothing to do with limiting freedom of speech, but rather with tweaking and fact-checking content to provide factual and educational narratives.

3. Finding the hidden talent, avoiding the charisma trap. There is a universal management paradox whereby the people most likely to climb the organizational ladder do so because (rather than in spite) of character traits that impair their performance as leaders. This has been causing a considerable amount of damage at different levels and in all environments, we simply cannot afford it any longer.

Manuela Andaloro

(info@smartbizhub.com)

Global economy and social media manipulation in the Covid era: recipe for disaster

The #globaleconomy is not an abstract concept. This infographic (Voronoi diagram) shows the 2019 #GDP of world economies, pre-Covid-19. In Q2 2020 the OECD - OCDE indicates a negative record of -6.9% G20 GDP drop.

A much worse trend than the #financialcrisis, when the G20 GDP had marked a drop of 1.6% in Q1 2009.

Only China managed to close Q2 2020 with GDP growth (+ 11.5%). The largest decline is that of India (-25.2%), followed by the UK (-20.4%). The decline was also clear in Mexico (-17.1%), SA (-16.4%), France (-13.8%), Italy (-12.8%), Canada (-11 , 5%), Turkey (-11%), Brazil and Germany (both -9.7%), US (-9.1%), Japan (-7.95), Australia (-7%) and Indonesia (-6.9%).

On a global scale, the progress made in the last 10 years in the fight against extreme poverty might vanish. In regions such as sub Sahara, Middle East and North Africa poverty levels could return to those of 30 years ago.

This might start new waves of mass immigration and social unrest, further triggering populist winds blown by #fakenews.

Much work to do, starting with the imperative need for #governments and #publicpolicy experts to frame regulation on the abuse of digital platforms and users' manipulation.

#thesocialdilemma #Covid #socialmedia #macroeconomics  SmartBizHub GmbH

Is this the end of big cities?

Article by Manuela Andaloro for Corriere dell’italianita’.

Being an investor in the real estate market for years, I have grown quite an interest in the dynamics that drive the sales and rental markets. The golden rule has always been the same: location is key.

This was a cornerstone in the pre-COVID time. What about now? 

Will COVID cause a real estate vacuum in big cities and a boom in rural towns?

The latest developments suggest that the ‘smart working revolution’ will prompt people to flee overcrowded and expensive cities for greener and more sustainable areas. Thanks to speedy broadband connections and a reliable network infrastructure, many are considering moving to holiday homes, in the suburbs, the countryside or the mountains, at the beach or the lake. Lockdowns seem to have opened up new scenarios: living in nature, reconciling family, career and leisure time whilst keeping a well-paid job in the city is now possible.

Will the urban fabric undergo some deep changes then? And, above all, is this event large enough to be considered a structural change?

A shift towards a coveted more sustainable future, supported by the introduction of COVID-19-related rules, was inconceivable until a few months ago in a society devoted to extreme urbanisation. 

Social distancing and the ongoing pandemic have deprived big cities of their greatest charm – melting pots that attract and blend the lives and skills of different people. Those who love cities – and there are many of them – cannot wait to return to normalcy or, rather, to a new normal, because this epidemic, like every crisis, is also an opportunity to rethink and improve our lifestyle. And this is true also for large cities.

Famous architect Stefano Boeri, earlier this spring expressed his stance on the matter without any doubts: "In the UK people are expected to leave most densely populated areas soon". The same goes for Italy, where those who own a second home will most likely decide to move there or, at least, spend long periods there, making the most of the convenience and potential of smart working. Boeri considers this experience an opportunity to rethink one's way of life and stresses that "going through this tragedy without understanding its causes would be a real waste".

After all, what is the point of paying more than a thousand Euro for a room in central London, Paris, Milan, New York, if you can work from a larger house, perhaps with a garden, from any location?

Questions like this are frequently asked in public debates worldwide and many people answer without a second thought, especially in the wake of the recent lockdowns, confined to narrow spaces without any nature. It is not worth it, the future of our cities is at risk. 

The New York Times has published an extensive article on this subject. The analysis concludes that the Coronavirus could represent an unprecedented cut-off for urban concentrations.

Gabriele Albertini, the former mayor of Milan, talks about the lure of large urban hubs: “Should this situation persist for years, urban design will have no choice but to adapt. Cities have much more to offer than only a physical workplace: besides the work opportunities, we cannot forget also the social and cultural ones. It is wrong to limit a city only to its offices”.

However, the tendency to flee large cities is quite significant: as the Financial Times reported, in the City of London most companies are in no hurry to bring their employees back to their offices.

Many big companies are going down the same road – Google will not have its employees back in the office before spring 2021 while Facebook went the extra mile, announcing that half of its employees will work from home within the next 10 years.

Are the policies of some companies sufficient to generate a structural change leading to the opposite direction to what we have witnessed for hundreds of years, during which mankind has migrated to cities, or will this be merely a privilege for a few?

Will the housing market in cities hold up in the short term? What about megacities versus smaller, greener cities close to nature?

On top of that, there is a social factor to consider. Both private and working life is fuelled by physical presence, by one's network, by the readiness to seize new opportunities or participate in events... All of this is possible only in large cities.

Finally, we must take into account the inevitable commercial interests of the geopolitical stakeholders in big cities. The investors backing the construction of skyscrapers and offices in "prime locations" will clash with large companies for divergent interests.

The governance of the cities will not accept full time smart working indefinitely. The conflict will then affect access to public assets, events, public transport.

If buildings, theatres, cinemas, trains can no longer reach their full occupancy, costs will increase and the final consumer will have to bear them.

Not to mention health. How will countries deal with an increasingly elder population, dispersed in small towns?

Will we face increased health risks when living far from the major health facilities?

Politics will then come into play, taking one or the other side. Climate change will be a hot topic too: on the one hand, it is safe to say that less crowded urban areas ensure environmental sustainability and less pollution; on the other hand, however, we will have to rely less on public transport and more on private cars and we will have to build new homes and infrastructure.

There is clear evidence that megacities (cities with a population of more than 10 million people) such as New York, and London will suffer long-term impact.

The so-called “London crisis” goes beyond the fear of Covid, Londoners were happy to give up days that involved hours of travel squashed on tube and trains, unhealthy and expensive meals and stressful interactions with bosses and colleagues.

Unlike in other smaller cities, only 20% of employees has gone back to the office and to the City. The remaining 80% has little intention to return to a pre-COVID time.  Will London become a ghost town? The fear is real: the City remains empty, offices are deserted, cafes closed, few people around, public transport sees 70% less people. The result is catastrophic: the entire economic system on which the British capital was based is crushed. It is the business model of the capital that is going into meltdown: until now it was based on the idea of ​​concentrating millions of people in the centre.

The pandemic has made clear that current technology makes all this superfluous as everything can be done from home.

Someone compared the fate of London to that of the Northern England mines in the 1980s: when their model became obsolete, they were forced to close. Will the same happen to what used the most electrifying metropolis in the world?

And what about the city that never sleeps, New York City, will it ever wake up?

Not according to James Altucher, a best-selling author and former hedge-fund manager who wrote, in a recent article that went viral, that New York City is “dead forever” as its residents come to grips with the reality of the coronavirus pandemic and what it means for the fate of the Big Apple. Altucher isn’t alone, of course. The New York Times back in June asked the “agonizing” question: “Is New York City worth it anymore?” amid a mass exodus of an estimated 420,000 residents between March and May.

What about smaller cities?

What will be the normal way of city life when the pandemic passes? What will remain and what will disappear?

Like all change, it is difficult to predict. But lessons from history provide us with important knowledge: 

1.     Temporary change sometimes has little lasting effect.

2.     Lasting effects are often the acceleration of existing trends, rather than new, crisis-caused trends.

Working from home has overnight become endemic. Schools and universities switched remarkably quickly to almost exclusively online platforms. We might truly have an opportunity for our cities to shift to new ways of more sustainable urban living. This might be harder to achieve for megacities, easier perhaps for smaller, more adaptable cities. Businesses should seize the opportunity, implement the technology and leverage the current strong determination to achieve successful outcomes and more sustainable ways of living.

So will COVID cause a real estate vacuum in big cities and a boom in rural towns?

Through an exploration of trends the virus has brought to retail, office, hotel and residential real estate, as well as the air travel and vacation industries, a recent report by Fitch Ratings, makes some predictions for the future.

City center real estate may take a hit.

Newly remote workers may transform the residential real estate landscape because of a desire to move to suburban or rural cities. They need bigger homes to fit in their home offices, the report said. People also want outdoor living space because of their experiences during lockdowns.

“Within the big cities, there could be weaker demand for malls, non-grocery real estate and office space. Empty office and multi-family residential buildings may wind up meeting housing needs and bringing down housing pricing pressure in big cities, the report said.

Renting, rather than buying, apartments or homes may become more popular for several reasons. Some people may not be able to obtain affordable credit, while others will just feel uncomfortable taking on a big loan during the uncertain economic climate.

This may significantly increase demand for rental housing, which should boost demand for single-family and multi-family rental properties.

This could be different for student apartment complexes, since university classes are remote and fewer overseas students will attend because of how the pandemic has slowed international travel and impacted immigration figures. Some students may just attend college close to home, for budgetary reasons.”

For centuries, cities have played a fundamental role for mankind. If in the future, people will not spend most of their time in a lockdown and the social distancing issue will be at least partially solved, then the cities, especially those close to countryside, lakes, mountains and seaside, will again become the political, economic, social and commercial core of our society, at least for a large part of the population. A large question mark however remains on large megalopolis that confine people in small apartments and are not located close to natural escapes, shifting the real estate demand for new, sustainable locations.

 Manuela Andaloro

(info@smartbizhub.com) 

(Sources: CNN, Il Sole24Ore, Linkiesta, New York Times, Financial Times, The Conversation, Globest, Fitch Ratings)

COVID-19 LENS: LONGEVITY ECONOMY AND GRETA GENERATION. FINTECHS MUST THINK BIG.

Built for growth, the global economic machine has been brought to a screeching halt. Thanks to intervention on an unprecedented scale, a full-scale meltdown has been averted – for now.

On January 30th, 2020, 43 representatives from 32 UK FinTechs, 25 Swiss banks and financial institutions, 7 VCs, 19 Swiss FinTech players, and many others gathered in Zurich: over 180 experts met to talk innovation, sustainability, and investments.

We didn’t know then that our world was about to change for a while to come – perhaps forever – and that soon we’d have put our discussions about innovation and sustainability to practice.

5th UK FinTech Mission to Switzerland event, 30.1.20, British Embassy Bern, DIT, Zurich Insurance

Key discussions of the day focused on social shifts driven by the longevity economy, age diversity, and ethics reshaping the financial world. Our aging society has been affecting consumer trends, opening new opportunities for businesses and workforce, while increasingly, 40-year-old millennials have been leading the charge of socially-responsible and sustainable investing, both ultimately driving the greater good.

COVID-19 has changed the ball game in today’s global economy, society, and impact investment strategies, calling into serious question our ability to reach the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 – if that was ever possible.

With the current crisis in full development, many hope that a “mindset shift” will occur once a “new normal” is achieved. Both optimists and pessimists seem to agree that western balance sheets will at best go back to 2008 levels. In terms of debt-to-GDP, we’re talking of 10 percent or more, plus unemployment at 15-20 percent coupled with the strong possibility of populist-enforced cuts in foreign aid and the very likely scenario of social unrest across the first world.

The financial meltdown (currently deemed to be worse than that of 1987 or indeed, as some say, similar to the Great Depression of the 1930s) will also very likely reduce traditional foundation funding. 

It is interesting, and very difficult, to think now of the topics we discussed on stage only a few months back, and to do so, wearing a Covid-19 lens. Most of the challenges we discussed – whether concerning the aging population among consumers and investors as well as in the workplace, or the attitude of millennials towards social good – have only worsened. Possibly, two key aspects will emerge and might be the staple to overcome the ever-greater challenges ahead: digitization and sustainability, sparking new discussions around a new way to work and to engage in less-social contexts, and around the increasing need for impact and sustainable investing.

“As the Chair of the International Accounting Standards Board recently noted, the current approach ‘will not prioritize planet over profit.’ What is important for both sides of the for-profit and not-for-profit divide is not what people are saying – but what they are already doing to be socially impactful. What are we paying for?  And what is the incremental impact of each government or corporate dollar to each SDG? In other words, we need a metrics process whereby everyone is seriously involved and stakeholder actions are competitive, comparative and, predictive.

If not, we will continue to witness a decline in both the effective statistics measuring the SDGs as well as the effectiveness of programs designed to serve them, with an expansion of the funding gap. The danger is that, by 2030, the international community will have spent $6 trillion with little to show, particularly to teenage Swedish activist Greta Thunberg’s generation.”

Governments are pumping out capital to try to save economies and bridge financing gaps around the world, but it is apparent that government funding alone is likely to be insufficient to solve this immediate crisis. Nor can it be relied on as the only solution for the longer-term investments required to build stable, resilient systems that can manage a planet headed toward a population of 10 billion people within the next few decades. 

We know that climate change will disproportionately affect those at the base of the economic pyramid; as we are experiencing with coronavirus-related deaths and job losses, the same is true for this pandemic. The crisis has highlighted the case for purpose-driven, inclusive finance across both the environmental and social sectors, which is at the core of impact investing.

An encouraging takeaway from the crisis is that the push for private capital to act more decisively as a force for good in society and to shoulder a portion of the investment burden does not have to come necessarily with attractive returns.

 Visionary leadership needed.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to create uncertainty, many FinTechs are under stress on a number of fronts. Access to funding – especially for some early-stage ventures, as many investors focused on established FinTechs with clear business models –, recent interest rate cuts and the economic slowdown have radically changed many industry assumptions.

Yet, as the broader economy shifts from response to recovery, COVID-19 may create new opportunities for some FinTechs. For example, as social distancing has taken hold worldwide, there has been very strong growth in the use of digital financial services and e-commerce, as well as an increased interest in doing the “social good”.

Keeping an eye on future opportunities, FinTech companies may be forced to reexamine their missions and business models after COVID-19. A key question is how to leverage both existing and newly-developed assets to seize new opportunities in the future. It could be an opportune time to think big and act boldly. First and foremost, it is apparent that social distancing is accelerating customers’ use of online – especially, mobile – channels to view and manage their finances. Because many FinTechs are purpose-built for the mobile channel, they often excel in offering presentation, on-boarding, underwriting, and data visualization services, as well as in providing the right context for transactions. These capabilities will likely become even more relevant and important as a greater number of financial transactions are conducted through digital channels.

FinTechs can play an important role, perhaps through strategic partnerships across a broad ecosystem of players – including financial institutions, retailers, and the government sector – in distributing benefits to more vulnerable sectors of the population. Indeed, many FinTechs made it their mission to democratize financial services by providing basic financial services in a fair and transparent way. 

COVID-19 and the Longevity Economy

Despite the outbreak, the global population continues to age, and we expect global life expectancies to creep higher over the long term. Although we may see some changes in consumption patterns post-COVID-19, the key drivers of the longevity economy will likely remain intact.

The “Longevity Economy” is redrawing economic lines (AARP research), changing the face of the workforce, advancing technology and innovation, and busting perceptions of what it means to age. Bank of America Merrill Lynch projected in 2019 that the global spending power of those aged 60-plus would reach $15 trillion annually by the end of 2020.

Increasing longevity had, until February 2020, spurred unprecedented economic growth and new opportunities for personal fulfilment. Markets have been evolving to meet their needs and aspirations, offering new opportunities.

Aging adults are not only consumers – they are our only increasing natural resource, a talent pool that can power businesses and enhance the communities of the future.

Over the next few decades, baby boomers and Gen X will pass a significant amount of wealth (calculated at $30T prior to the COVID crisis) on the millennial generation. With very high spending power, millennials have started to reshape the investing and FinTech spaces to better align with their ethical values.

FinTechs for social good

“Life is what happens when you are busy making other plans.”  As we struggle to bring into focus the long-term impacts of a post-COVID-19 world, Lennon’s quote is a poignant reminder of the uncertainties that lie ahead for sustainable and responsible investors. 

We are now approaching an inflection point in the crisis, where savvy investors are fundamentally reassessing economic, environmental, social and, governance factors to adjust to the new normal.

The time has passed for small commitments, hyperboles, and delays in embracing sustainable investing. Now is the time for leadership, investment, and action.  Companies and investment managers that remain on the sidelines will sacrifice their opportunity to shape their own, and the planet’s, future.

Within 36 months, there will no longer be a discernable distinction between sustainable and traditional investing, predicts the Responsible Investor.

We can only take note and act fast.

Manuela Andaloro

(info@smartbizhub.com)

Sources: Global Geneva, the Guardian, Deloitte, Gig Economy Data, Responsible Investor.

Republished also on Corriere dell’Italianita’

UK FinTech Mission to Switzerland 2020

Occupation: Prime Minister

Article by Manuela Andaloro for Corriere dell’italianita’.

At the end of January 2020, I took a few months off to welcome the arrival of our third child. I was going to leave behind a familiar and comfortable reality, with a stable balance and foreseeable dynamics. After four months, I prepare to pick up where I left off and to gradually reopen myself to the world, but the world I left, is not the world I am about to return to, nor the world I lived in with my family and that I have seen change in these few months.

What should we expect from the “new normal” that awaits us and from life after lockdowns?

 A recent cover story from The Economist talks about a “90% economy”, in which significant bits of the pre-COVID everyday life simply won’t exist any more. At least, until a vaccine and/or treatment will be found or the virus will have disappeared on its own.

 After the lockdowns, the factories have reopened and the streets are no longer empty, but the result is a 90% economy, where the use of public transport has decreased by a third, and domestic flights are nearly all grounded. Consumer spending has decreased by 40% and the same goes for eating out. Hotel stays are one-third of what they used to be. People are overwhelmed by financial difficulties, uncertainty, the fear of social uprisings or a second wave of COVID-19. More companies are filing for bankruptcy, unemployment is soaring, GDP is free falling. On the other hand, deaths caused by air pollution – 1.5 million each year, according to WHO – dropped to almost zero and the benefits for the environment are countless. This affects all the countries that have opted for more stringent lockdowns but also reflects onto those that have not implemented any type of closing measures.

The economic, social and political after-effects of COVID-19 are leaving deep scars in the society and spread out with a myriad of ramifications, creating a domino effect.

In this context, the need for stability on the one hand and for a sustainable change on the other is strongly felt by the vast majority of the population. Something is moving: change is in the air and expectations among the people are growing.

The task of all those who believe in free markets and western democracies is to ensure that these expectations are channelled towards the right kind of change.

Eventually, this pandemic might even increase the sense of solidarity both at a national level and globally. Perhaps, this time – unlike the crisis of 2007-2009 – the desire for a change will not lead to a surge in populism.

In this challenging scenario, I see more and more great opportunities opening up. Politics is one of them, a subject for which I have a strong passion, like so many other women.

Abigail Spanberger, Virginia 7th Congressional District seat winner, addresses the crowd as daughter Catherine, 4, playfully crawls between her mother's legs during the election night party, Nov. 6, 2018. Looking on are Spanberger's husband, Adam, right, and daughters Claire, 10, and Charlotte, 7. Spanberger defeated two-term Republican Rep. Dave Brat. (Bob Brown, AP)

World leaders attend a family photo session at the G20 in Osaka. Kim Kyung-Hoon/Pool/Getty Images

But, like so many other women, I often find the rugged roads of politics hard to walk and the tools needed to be out of reach. If in the corporate world we speak of a “glass ceiling”, in the political circles we could define it as a concrete ceiling: it’s out there for everyone to see.

Formal equality of the sexes does exist but the facts on the ground are different: over the last two millennia, politics has been ruled by men according to a gender conception that has prevented equal rights so far. As a matter of fact, in Italy, women are 51% of the population but only 30% are involved in politics. Simply put, a big portion of the population is not being represented and has little relevance in public policies, even those that concern women directly.

Everywhere in the world women are under-represented: only 24.3% of all national parliamentarians were women as of April 2019 (UN statistics); out of the 193 Member States of the United Nations, only 15 have a female leader (Pew Research).

In Switzerland, my current country, female voters outnumber their male counterparts by 10% (Swissinfo). Yet, women remain a minority in cantonal and federal politics.

Women in politics are confronted with a male majority in virtually all respects, even if there are big differences between the political parties. For example, the share of men in Switzerland’s strongest party, the conservative right Swiss People’s Party, is twice as high as the share of female members. The same applies to the centre-right Conservative Democratic Party.

Both the centrist Christian Democrats and the Social Democratic Party state that their share of female members is around 40%, while the centre-right Radical-Liberal Party does not reveal its figures. Apart from the Greens, no other party approaches parity.

 A closer look at the number of female delegates reveals a similar picture.

 Alice Glauser, People’s Party’s parliamentarian for canton Vaud, thinks this is problematic: “The structures were created by men for men”.

 Also in Italy, the figures are well known and merciless. No female Prime Minister, or President of the Republic, ever. Until the first Conte cabinet, throughout the seventy years of the Italian Republic, over fifteen hundred male ministers were elected, against only eighty-three female ministers, half of which were without portfolio. Today, three out of five female ministers are without portfolio. Only 13 mayors out of a hundred are women.

In this social context affected by COVID and with such a fragmented political framework, I rejoiced when I saw – at least, in Italy – strong and successful initiatives taking place with the aim of shaping the future political order. They advocate for equal opportunities bearing a constructive and democratic vision.

The first one is called “Prime Donne” (Women first), a school of Political Studies supported by Più Europa Association and presented to the Chamber of Deputies. It is a training course for 25 women selected among over two hundred candidates. It’s just a drop in the ocean, but it’s a start.

Fabiana Musicco, the spokeswoman of the school, explains further: “We work on contextual data that are often not known to the public. We aim at exposing the under-representation of women and showing how their increased presence, for instance in municipal executive councils, has contributed to changing the policies. We are talking about the structure of political parties, access to the leadership, how electoral rolls are created. We also offer training modules on the so-called ‘soft skills’, that is, communication abilities. Political verbal communication – even that of talk shows – is ruled by a masculine, aggressive speech style; we want to disrupt these patterns. We also want to bring up new proposals for a better work-life balance”. 

The second initiative, Prime Minister, is a school of Political Studies for young women (aged 13 to 19) which intends to “inspire a new generation of women by introducing them to politics – understood as the art of interpreting and guiding society –, discussing democracy, activism, social justice and female leadership.”

 “We are trying to build a new piece of the world, a dimension where we can find happiness in the community, where we can discover new ways of thinking and living”, says Florinda Saieva, 42, from Sicily. “We want to inspire the youngsters, to discuss with them about democracy, institutions, justice, sustainable development; we want to reflect on the power of active citizenship as well as on the absurdity of gender stereotypes that continue to relegate women to secondary roles and on the need, instead, for new female leaders. This can be seen as a gender equality challenge and a generational challenge – this is why young girls are our priority. What’s more, this is also a challenge to promote the South of Italy, where boys and girls go through huge difficulties. We mean to stimulate the talent and sensitivity of these young girls, hoping that these very girls may be the Prime Ministers of tomorrow. We all desperately need a change and I believe that after the horrible moment we are going through, we will be ready to make it happen”.

In this difficult moment we are experiencing, it is essential to grasp and guide this change, now more than ever. We need to start building new structures and synergies made for an economic, political and social future that includes and leverages that 51% of the population, breaking up with the past and, finally, disrupting these obsolete and harmful mechanisms.

Manuela Andaloro

(info@smartbizhub.com)

Switzerland: Gender equality, the Italian language and labour market.

“Inform to educate, publish to raise awareness, preserve to keep the memory, fight for a future full of solidarity, in which social values are shared and strive for a society based on true democracy.”

This the mission of “Corriere dell’Italianità”, a successful publication (both printed and digital) read across Europe as well as globally. The newspaper has a 57-year-old history, a very interesting and growing readership and is very well established within institutional and political environments.

But what is Italian-ness in Italy and the Italian-speaking part of Switzerland, as well as all over the world, and what shines behind old and tired stereotypes?
 
Established in 1962, Corriere dell'Italianità aims at raising awareness on Italian culture, in Italy, in the Italian-speaking Switzerland, and all over the world. A publication of excellence that increasingly leverages innovation, digitisation, social values and the core societal themes we see reflected in politics, economy, the labour market, science, sports and free time.  Headed by President Franco Narducci, member of Parliament of the Italian Republic (XV and XVI terms) and Vice President of the Foreign Affairs Commission, and spearheaded by Valeria Camia, director of Corriere, an experienced journalist with a strong background in the social policies sector and European universities.

I was delighted and honoured when I had the pleasure of giving an interview on my work and commitment to the cause of diversity and EQ-driven leadership to Corriere, and when I was later asked to join their outstanding board as a board member.

One of the first events I had the pleasure of attending took place on 23rd November 2019, where the Swiss Parliament President, Marina Carobbio Guscetti, offered a broad overview of the political scenario of the Swiss Confederation after the elections held on 20 October and the ballot for the formation of the Council of States.

Marina Carobbio with journalist Simona Cereghetti

Among the numerous relevant subjects discussed by President Carobbio, I reckon that a couple of pressing issues deserve a special mention as they also characterised the policy she adopted throughout her presidential mandate - which ended on 1 December 2019, after which she was elected to Councillor of the Assembly's upper house*.

In front of a crowded audience, Marina Carobbio answered the pressing questions of Simona Cereghetti – RSI's journalist and Berne correspondent. She started her reflection on gender disparities with the current situation in Parliament.

Today, the women sitting at the National Council represent 42% of all members, while the Council of States has 12 women (around 26%). Compared to the situation before the electoral round, these are extraordinary figures.

Thanks to an awareness-raising campaign supported by several social sectors (such as the "Helvetia ruft" campaign and the 14 June strike), today Switzerland lags behind significantly less with regards to equality between women and men in politics! Certainly, there remains ample room for improvement with the aim to increase female presence and visibility in key roles but the determination of Swiss women and the new-found unity goes beyond political parties and bode well for future development! Gradually, Swiss society is realising – both at an inter-generational and inter-party level – that remarkable results can be obtained through gender solidarity in terms of justice and reduction of inequalities between men and women.

At a closer look, it is clear that this achievement is also supported by men. This new attitude brings up other important subjects such as the traditional perception of the caregiver work, which is a task carried out mostly by women without a salary nor social insurance contributions.

A deception that will impinge upon their future retirement pension. In recent months or even weeks, discussions have been initiated in various working groups – both political and institutional ones – to examine the issue of workers leaving the labour market to look after not only their seriously ill children but also the elderly. “Within this ageing society”, said President Carobbio, “we can no longer postpone the issue of the role of women (and men) in care-giving activities. Facing the problem of gender differences becomes then a crucial issue because of its impact on social cohesion and, last but not least, on democracy – a kind of democracy that should guarantee not only equal rights but also equal opportunities.”

Along with the “genre” issue, the "Italian language" plays a decisive role in participation in political life and social cohesion in Switzerland. In a country founded on different cultures and traditions, expressed also linguistically, the use of all four national languages ​​must be defended and strengthened.

We must underline that, for this reason, Marina Carobbio has made a change in the parliamentary operations, imposing a widespread use of her mother tongue, Italian, following up on what Chiara Simoneschi Cortesi had done before: she was, in fact, the first Italian-speaking woman President of the National Council (2008-2009) who carried out part of her parliamentary work in her mother tongue. In a country where anglicisms are commonly used and English seems to be taking over national minority languages ​​between the various Swiss linguistic regions, the protection of the Italian language allows the safeguard of the history and culture of an important sector of the Swiss Confederation. A sector that struggles in finding a place of its own, squeezed between "the rest of Switzerland" to the north and the Lombard landscape to the south.

Manuela Andaloro

(Adapted from Valeria Camia’s article in Corriere dell’Italianita’)

*Marina Carobbio, role update: As of the 1st of December 2019, Member of Parliament Marina Carrobbio is a Councillor of the States: also a member of the commission on social security and health, a member of the commission on science, education and culture in which she promotes multilingualism, Italian-ness and gender equality and a member of the finance committee in which her political priorities are the climate crisis, pensions and labour mobility.

Switzerland’s new President for 2020. In Switzerland, the position of president is ceremonial. Switzerland’s executive is led jointly by all seven members of the Federal Council, known as les sept sages (the seven wise ones) by French speakers. The ceremonial role of the president rotates annually among Federal Council members. In addition to the diplomatic duties of the president, he or she chairs Federal Council meetings and has the tie-breaker vote on contentious decisions. In 2020 the role of president passes to Simonetta Sommaruga, Switzerland’s minister of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communication.  

The Earth went bankrupt.

Article and Cover Story by Manuela Andaloro for FocusOn November 2019.

Deniers of global warming argue that our planet has always been cooling down and warming up. Based on what we know today from science, this is presumably true. But the big difference with the past is that cooling and heating took place over thousands of years; not within a handful. Until recent times, the Earth had never had to deal with billions of consumers and polluters who have had no issues at all with that, at least for a long time. The greenhouse effect, abnormal temperatures and desertification are not just some ideologies. Denying them when the first hint of winter comes is like claiming – as a scientist told Trump – that world hunger does not exist because you just had a Big Mac.

Scientific status quo and socio-economic SCENARIOS.

All most recent scientific research and the reports issued by the United Nations on the basis on the analysis and revision of thousands of studies, agree that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing at an alarming rate, with ever more evident repercussions: from more intense and extreme weather conditions, such as storms and hurricanes, to abnormal heat waves (this summer, in Europe, there were three of them), ice melting at the Poles and on mountain ranges, the rising of sea levels. 

Based on the collected data and the time cycles, the entire scientific community agrees that human activities have contributed significantly to global warming. The production of carbon dioxide, deriving from industrial activities and large consumption of fossil fuels, has increased the greenhouse effect beyond the natural rate, preventing the Earth from dispersing part of the heat accumulated by solar radiation. Without a conspicuous reduction in carbon dioxide, scientists say, it will be impossible to reduce the increase in global average temperature.

A recent report by Goldman Sachs on the impact of climate change on cities around the world leaves no room for doubt or soft solutions.  (Source: Markets Insider)

The international scenario

An extraordinary meeting on climate change summoned by the United Nations was held on Monday, 23 September in New York but, for many, the meeting did not yield great results neither did it lead to serious promises by the most industrialised countries to reduce polluting emissions.

 A lot of talking, many clichés, good intentions but few effective strategies.

 No promises from China, no statements from the United States, or India, essentially confirming three of the most polluting countries in the world are indifferent to the most important topic of the century.

It seems that the countries with sovereign leaders and parties with a strong populist ideology do not consider the climatic emergency worthy of note.

 A negative outcome then?

 Maybe not. The delegates who participate in these institutional meetings mainly belong, by culture and age, to the generation that caused the problem in the first place, the generation of economic growth at all costs. The same generation that in many cases perceives this issue as annoying, as evidenced by their actions – though not their words. But the future, of our society and our planet, belongs much less to today's 50- or 60-year olds, and much more to today's 15- to 40-year olds.

A more aware generation is rising, younger in age and culture, embracing very different principles. A generation that, to a large extent, cannot access (yet) institutional meetings and political or governmental decision rooms but which has found a way to make its voice heard.

On Friday, 27 September, over 4 million people of all ages from around the world (8 million according to other estimates) have peacefully taken to the streets to make their voices heard, to join a climate strike launched in different countries to ask rulers to take actions and a serious commitment to address the climate change.

The summit held on 23 September may perhaps have failed, but it succeeded in changing the perspective on climate change on the international scene. World leaders have noted that such an event would not have happened without the pressure of so many young people.

Earth Overshoot Day

For those with young children, summer holidays are usually a moment to look for a common wavelength, spend more time together and find ways to deal with everyday highs and lows together. Basically, a time to search for common ground between different generations. For as long as they can remember, my 6- and 4-year-old children have always found rubbish on the beach (be they well-maintained beaches or free beaches, unfortunately, no one is immune to the serial polluter, uneducated and ill-mannered) and plastic in the sea. For as long as they can remember, I have invariably read a newspaper every day, trying to translate it into a language they can understand, commenting on the daily news, using common sense to filter what can be understood and processed by their minds in such an important phase of their lives.

In this context, during the last summer holidays, I found myself trying to explain to them what the "Earth Overshoot Day" is – which, this year, took place on 29 July. A whopping 5 months before the end of the year.

 If planet Earth were a company, the Earth Overshoot Day would be the day it would go bankrupt. It is not just a metaphor to explain what over-exploitation is. It is the reality of scientific facts.

Non-governmental organisation Global Footprint Network calculates the Earth Overshoot Day precisely, rigorously and scientifically, and it does it every year. The Overshoot Day is the date on which humanity's resource consumption for the year exceeds Earth’s capacity to regenerate those resources that year.

What about vegetarianism?

Aware of the link between human nutrition and the climate crisis, an increasing portion of the world population has recently decided to turn vegetarian.

But is vegetarianism really more eco-friendly? The simple answer is yes because the environmental impact of the animal food industry is currently catastrophic and is destined to grow. 

According to statistics, meat production levels are set to increase from 309 million tons in 2013 to 465 million in 2050, when the world population will have exceeded 9 billion inhabitants. Over the last 50 years, we have witnessed an impressive increase in consumption, which has grown fivefold compared to the past. Consequently, there has been an increase in the number of animal breeding, a deterioration in meat quality and, in general, in the livestock industry.

Our food choices dramatically affect the planet: according to a UN research report, meat farming is responsible for 18 per cent of gas emissions and 37 per cent of methane ones.

Even if we leave aside for a moment the animal rights aspect (a recent video by the non-profit association CIWF Italia exposes the main problems of intensive farming, with a specific focus to animal suffering: the video ends with the slogan "truth sells less") it is undeniable that by decreasing the consumption of meat and paying more attention to quality it will be possible to change the course towards more ethical and sustainable consumption, both in terms of environmental impact as well as human and animal welfare. 

Manuela Andaloro for FocusOn’s Cover Story, November 2019

Social Media between society and democracy. Tech giants, is this how you want History to remember you?

Article and Cover Story by Manuela Andaloro for FocusOn Mag, August 2019.

At the inauguration of Brazil’s new far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, in early January, a crowd of his supporters began a surprising chant. They weren’t cheering for Bolsonaro or his running mate or their party; instead, they were reciting the names of social media platforms. "Facebook!", "WhatsApp!" shouted the crowd.

They were crediting the platforms with their man’s victory, and they aren’t entirely wrong. During the campaign, a conservative pro-business interest group funded a massive disinformation campaign on WhatsApp (the popular messaging app owned by Facebook). False and damaging information about Bolsonaro’s left-wing opponent spread like wildfire in the run-up to the vote. This deluge, according to one Brazilian expert, played a role in Bolsonaro’s victory.

 Bolsonaro’s sympathizers and supporters are part of an increasingly dangerous worldwide trend. A troubling development, now familiar to many, is now evident: social media, once seen as a profoundly democratic technology, is increasingly serving the needs of authoritarians and their allies.

Many observers have noted that entrenched authoritarian states, like Russia and China, have gotten very good at manipulating these platforms to marginalize domestic dissidents and destabilize democracies abroad. What has gotten less attention is how authoritarian factions inside democratic states — far-right politicians and parties that are at best indifferent to democratic norms — benefit from the nature of modern social media platforms.

The American 2016 elections, those in Brazil in 2018, the ones in the United Kingdom in 2016 and in Italy in 2017 have demonstrated that social media are a tool that is unfortunately widely used for this type of activity.

Should we perhaps admit a rather painful truth? Has social media, perhaps, become an authoritarian tool in the manner in which they are currently being used?

How the far right gains an advantage using social media

The Journal of Democracy is one of the premier academic venues for analyzing the current state of democratic politics. Its most recent issue features an essay from Ronald Deibert, a political scientist and director of the University of Toronto’s tech-focused Citizen Lab, on the role of social media in modern politics. His conclusion?

“It seems undeniable,” Deibert writes, “that social media must bear some of the blame for the descent into neo-fascism.”

Ten years ago, Deibert’s view — now widely shared among journalists and scholars — would have sounded absurd.

The main characteristic of social media seem to be a vague democratic promise, but the rapid dissemination of information can be used against democracy through information overload and the dissemination of false news that leverage the fears of those who often have few means to understand the reality of the facts.

An always-on, real-time information tsunami creates the perfect environment for the spread of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, rumours, and “leaks.” Unsubstantiated claims and narratives go viral while fact-checking efforts struggle to keep up. Members of the public, including researchers and investigative journalists, may not have the expertise, tools, or time to verify claims. By the time they do, the falsehoods may have already embedded themselves in the collective consciousness.

A recent study found that conservatives were more than four times as likely to share fake news on Facebook as liberals. Another study, from researchers at the University of Oxford, found that conservative users were overwhelmingly more likely to spread “junk news” (defined as outlets that “deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information”).

The University of Oxford’s Samantha Bradshaw and Philip Howard put out a report last year on the political abuse of social media platforms in 48 countries. They argue that in each of these cases, the use of tools like fake news and trolling undermine the health of democratic regimes and benefit authoritarians. The more anger there is out there, the more support is guaranteed to anti-democratic forces.

"Unfortunately, there is mounting evidence that social media are being used to manipulate and deceive the voting public—and to undermine democracies and degrade public life", they write. "Social media have gone from being the natural infrastructure for sharing collective grievances and coordinating civic engagement, to being a computational tool for social control, manipulated by canny political consultants, and available to politicians in democracies and dictatorships alike."

 A BuzzFeed analysis found that between 2012 and 2017, seven of the ten most popular articles about German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Facebook were false. Merkel is widely seen as a champion of European liberal values and inclusiveness, one of the major bulwarks against the far-right tide on the continent. Three of the seven false articles in the BuzzFeed list were attacks on her immigration record, all focusing on making immigrants seem like threats to Germany and Merkel unreasonably sympathetic.

Facebook’s role in Brexit and the threat to democracy.

In a recent viral and unmissable TED Talk that has garnered over two million views in just two months the journalist and Pulitzer Prize candidate Carole Cadwalladr has discussed one of the most shocking events in recent times: the very close vote in the United Kingdom in 2016 to leave the European Union. In her speech Carole mentions the "gods of Silicon Valley" for their role in helping authoritarians consolidate their power in different countries.

In her talk, Cadwalladr spoke to those whom she identifies as the chief culprits: Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, Google's Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and Twitter's Jack Dorsey.

"This technology that you have invented has been amazing but now it's a crime scene. And you have the evidence. And it is not enough to say that you will do better in the future because to have any hope of stopping this from happening again, we have to know the truth…because what the Brexit vote demonstrates is that liberal democracy is broken, and you broke it. This is not democracy: spreading lies in darkness, paid for with illegal cash from God knows where. It's subversion and you are accessories to it."

It’s not all bad, is it?

There are places where the democratic promise of social media, which has for example favoured the Arab spring or movements to counteract Orbán in Hungary and also Erdogan in Turkey, is not extinguished but they are the minority in relation to the damage that the social media platforms seem to be inflicting on the liberal order of democracies throughout the world.

Social media right now is functioning as a kind of parody of the classic “marketplace of ideas” mode of the public square. Instead of the best ideas winning out in free debate, there are so many bad ideas that the good ones simply get drowned out.

In August 2018, MIT Technology Review revisited its 2013 “Big Data Will Save Politics” cover, publishing a series of essays examining whether the technology had lived up to its promise. The overwhelming conclusion was that the magazine had been far too naive.

“Today,” editor-in-chief Gideon Lichfield writes, “technology feels as likely to destroy politics as to save it.”

M.

(Sources: TED, Umidigital, Uni Oxford, MIT, Vox, Journal of Democracy)

As published in Focus ON’s cover story, August 2019, download original article in Italian here.

Bringing EQ-driven leadership into companies.

Interview by Valeria Camia, journalist, web director Corriere dell'Italianità, to Manuela Andaloro Senior Advisor and Board Member, for Corriere degli Italiani

A successful entrepreneur, an ambassador of gender equality, and a mother, Manuela Andaloro tells her story. 

Business woman Manuela Andaloro has been the CEO of SmartBizHub since 2017. Together with her team, she does management consulting, especially in the field of new technologies and sustainability, working with multinationals and government agencies throughout Europe. Manuela travels often and is active in advocating and raising awareness on diversity, gender equality and on the balance between family and work. She was recently nominated for a major award on gender diversity. For many years, she has been advocating “diversity and inclusion” in companies. Could Manuela picture her current reality when, just a twenty-year-old student at IULM University in Milan, she got her first corporate role as an analyst at ACNielsen, working hard to keep up with her studies?

Manuela has been not only a successful entrepreneur in recent years, for over 17 years she has had important roles in leading financial companies in Europe, since 2012, she’s also a mother. A mother of two small children (4 and 6 years old), in Switzerland, a country in which achieving a balance between family and work is particularly complicated. Maternity leave is granted for only 3 months and fathers are excluded, as opposed to a European average of 6 to 12 months (or even 3 years in Germany) of leave, which in many cases can be shared equally between both parents. If wage parity remains a dream, the same goes for career opportunities, respect for diversity and promotion of social inclusion.

“Finding a balance between career and family is one of the hardest challenges that my husband and I – along with hundreds of parents with careers, I have met over the years – are facing in Swiss society, which in most cases still gives women the role of housekeepers and child carers. This concept is deeply rooted in the culture of this country. I still remember this chat I had with a doctor I had consulted because I felt tired after the birth of my first child and my return to work 5 months later. I remember the doctor asking me why I kept on working. It was shocking. And that was just the beginning. I was shocked again when I went back to work, first part time, then full time. Society in many cases expected me to be mainly a mother”, says Manuela, who considers herself lucky, because “there was still a job for me when my maternity leave was over if you consider that one in seven women in Switzerland loses her job when she becomes a mother.” Not to mention the economic situation, as private nurseries and kindergartens, that can provide more flexible times to allow parents to work, are very expensive and so precluded to many.

To be honest, Manuela actually had some thoughts about giving up her career, or taking a break. It was never easy to leave my children with the babysitter or at the nursery until late, to work and travel even on weekends, and being under the critical eye of society. But Manuela did not give up. She was courageous and aware of the need to break up with an obsolete, individualistic and non-empathic mindset, which does not leave enough space for women and is unable to cope with the new global picture of society and its stakeholders.

— Images, left to right: Manuela Andaloro moderating a FinTech international event in January 2019 in Zurich (credits: British Embassy Bern); speaking about adapting our working cultures to reflect a more modern world and diverse society, June 2019, Amsterdam. (Credits: EWPN, Money 2020); on stage speaking about new role models and leadership, October 2018, London (Credits: PayExpo); Balancing private life and work on a weekend. —

The trump card that can reconcile career and family, says Manuela, is a new type of EQ-driven leadership. “The best leaders of today invest their time and energy in understanding the people they work with and their teams. It’s the EIQ, or emotional intelligence quotient, which experts say has become today more important than IQ and is a better index of success for people, companies and society. This is why we must work to change the old mindset: a new approach will not only favour women but will also foster a type of leadership based on empathic soft skills. In the digital age and its new challenges, women should not be fighting to integrate themselves into a system that has proved to be disastrous as it supports only one model, the alpha personality, mostly very dominant figures. I met women that had old-fashioned leadership styles, not very cooperative and participatory, and men who lead in an inclusive way and pay attention to the social fabric outside and inside the company. Adopting a leadership based on arrogance, blind self-confidence and lack of empathy does not work today, in the face of the probable failure of liberal democracies, the negative influence of social platforms, the climate crisis, artificial intelligence and the associated risks. Both women and men should all work together to transform the mindset of companies (and politics), making room for the new facts on the ground”.

For women, it means they have to learn to believe more in themselves, to not settle for less and to act, without always waiting for the right moment in decisions concerning private and working life – to have a child or to accept a new role of great responsibility that involves changes. “Sacrificing one’s ambitions even before trying is harmful to oneself, to other women, to new generations and to the men that are witnessing this behaviour”.

On 14 June, over half a million women and men across Switzerland joined the demonstrations following the strike, plus all those who participated in a “digital” way. What do you wish for, Manuela? “I wish for strong governmental reforms and independent inspections of companies to assess corporate culture, and diversity within them. And I also expect each of us to raise awareness of issues of vital importance, in each of our daily roles, as mothers, fathers, teachers, workers, leaders. Starting from making our children aware of the importance of equality, inclusion and an open mind-set to face today’s new challenges”.

Valeria Camia with Manuela Andaloro

Manuela Andaloro is a senior professional with over 19 years of executive experience in global roles in financial services, business strategy and digital transformation, having lived in Milan, London and Zurich and worked for firms such as Nielsen, Financial News and UBS. Since 2017, she is the Founder of Swiss-based SmartBizHub, a management consultancy specialising in marketing, positioning, communications, sustainability, future tech and future work. Manuela is a professional speaker, a published author, and an editorial consultant for various leading publications on the topics of finance, social shifts, impact, culture and leadership. She serves as advisory board member of various Swiss and international organizations, and as a board member of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Europe. Manuela is a D&I champion and advocate for EQ- driven leadership, speaks English, Italian, German and Spanish and lives in Zurich with her husband and two children. 

As published in Corriere dell’ Italianita’ cover story, 30 July 2019 view original article in Italian here.

Brexit, a pause for breath?

Article by Manuela Andaloro, contribution by Laura Prina Cerai, Senior Investment Advisor, Altrafin AG

It’s an autumn afternoon in 2008, in London. I am sitting in a car next to Jeff, the CFO of the company I work for. I am part of the management team of an international financial services company with offices in London and Singapore. We are going to a meeting not far from London. We are near Maidenhead, a thriving residential town near the more industrial Slough, or the more well-known Windsor, north-west of the capital of the United Kingdom. Jeff is British, fair, calm, competent and empathic. We have a good working relationship. We talk about life in the city centre, Bayswater and Notting Hill, the area I live in, an Italian in her thirties with a ten-year career under her belt. We also talk about life outside London, where Jeff resides with his family; he’s a middle-aged man with almost teenage children.

London, cosmopolitan city. Over 300 languages are currently spoken in London schools.

“London is a truly cosmopolitan city, there is a great social integration, something to be proud of”, I comment at some point. “True that, but I think this is something people rarely see in us. Brits are not often recognised the merits of being open and welcoming towards immigration. I mean, there are different kinds of migrants. All this welcoming and open attitude…. I am afraid that at some point it may come back to haunt us”, answers Jeff with an emphasis that makes me now understand some of Brexit’s roots. I ask what he means by that. “You see, we don’t all really feel European, for starters, we drive on the right side of the road!”. Jeff is laughing but I catch some frustration in his tone. I have many thoughts in my mind, but we suddenly change the subject and go back talking about the client we’re about to visit.

This conversation came back to my mind the day after the referendum on Brexit, on 24th of June, 2016, in a moment of surprise for an unexpected result. I am reading one of the most precise reports ever written about the “unseen” London, “the stories you never hear, the people you never see” (ed. “This is London” by Ben Judah). “This is London in the eyes of its beggars, bankers, coppers, gangsters, carers, witch-doctors and sex workers. This is London in the voices of Arabs, Afghans, Nigerians, Poles, Romanians and Russians”. A work that sheds light upon a reality that I have not fully grasped during my 5 years in London. I have been caught up in my business life, or private life in the picturesque Notting Hill, between conferences and client meetings in the City, awards dinner in Park Lane and business trips. Like me, millions and millions of people are not fully aware of this reality.

The Eastern Europe immigration policies allowed by Cameron come back to my mind, along with the stories, the lives that we hardly notice, but actually have a vital impact on the culture and politics of a country.

Immigration has been leveraged as a hot topic and a sore point in “Leave” campaigns; the ONS (the Office of National Statistics), ranked it as the main concern of the British people in the spring of 2016.

Leave campaigns have encouraged that vision, by declaring that staying in the EU would mean 5.23 million more immigrants entering the country. This allegation was later found to be false.

In the weeks leading up to the referendum, politicians in favour of Brexit, such as Penny Mordaunt and Michael Gove, claimed (once again, falsely) that Britain would be exposed to a Muslim wave of immigration from Turkey should this latter become part of the EU.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, a UN body, accused British politicians of fuelling racial hatred and a sharp increase in racist crimes during and after the referendum campaign.

In the 2018 book “Ctrl Alt Delete: How Politics and the Media Crashed Our Democracy”, Gove told the author, Tom Baldwin, that if it had been just up to him, the referendum campaign would have been different. Really?

In 2017, Theresa May promised to drastically reduce immigrants by “tens of thousands” and to suspend the freedom of movement – the right of European citizens living in the EU to move to other member states. Eventually, any such intention was abandoned during the negotiations.

But in the middle of 2018, the sore point was no longer immigration. With Brexit around the corner, more serious problems were drawing all the attention. According to the ONS statistics of the spring of 2018, the new concerns of the British were housing, the cost of living, health and social security.

Every medal has two sides.

The “Remain” party was no less mistaken in terms of predictions. When the “Leave” campaign prevailed, Prime Minister David Cameron resigned, after having stated for months that he would remain.

Former Chancellor George Osborne said a victory of the “Leave” coalition would have lead to an “immediate and profound shock to our economy”. That shock would have caused an immediate recession and led to the loss of half a million jobs. Eventually, the economy did not fall sharply and the level of unemployment remained unchanged.

Other predictions, such as those of the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, accurately predicted slower growth, in line with the other rich G7 countries.

Around the end of 2018, the British economy reached the decade’s record low, and by then the pound had lost over 14% of the value it had before the referendum.

To date, many multinational companies have moved abroad or are in the process of doing so and various businesses and sectors are beginning to struggle.

Maybe not exactly an apocalypse, yet not even a signal that Britain is experiencing what Boris Johnson predicted it would be a “titanic success” with Brexit. (“Titanic success”, by Boris Johnson).

Between predictions and confusion, one thing is beyond doubt: if Brexit does happen, it will be all but the vision that was originally sold to the electorate who had requested it.

The state of affairs shows that, as in many other countries, the “Remainers” and “Leavers” represent different elements of the same country, two sides of the same medal. Sometimes war is fought within one’s self.

The major public debate of the last two years has separated families and broken friendships, but it has also brought to light the bonds that create and rule a country.

The use of history

“Brexiteers” have often referred to the concept – and the dream – of “Independence”. It is a noble, commendable dream, indeed. It is founded on Britain’s historic role as a proud nation that has repeatedly fought for its freedom. In the 18th century Britain resisted the Bourbon dream of European hegemony. At the beginning of the 19th century, the British people helped liberate Europe from the Napoleonic domination, they confronted Nazism in Germany in 1940.

But this is not 1939 or the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. History is always in the making.

The European Union is not a dictatorship, as was that of Napoleonic France. Nor can it be compared to Nazism, an irresponsible, superficial analogy that has become a bad cliché and shows an unforgivable lack of understanding of the true horror of recent European history.

Is such a language acceptable today, when all European partners are democracies and none of them represents the least threat to take up arms against Great Britain?

The political class and the global order

Where are today personalities like Churchill and Thatcher? Where are the statesmen and stateswomen who made the United Kingdom great? The British political class of today is offering a disheartening scenario: we are witnessing the decline of the elite of a nation that once dominated a vast empire from Canada to Australia. And the consequences can involve all of Europe.

The Brexit agreement reached between Theresa May and the EU in Westminster was rejected three times, and so did all the suggestions and hypotheses of an alternative. It was a No to a soft Brexit, No to its revocation, No to a second referendum, but also a No to the no deal option (leaving without any agreement).

At the beginning of the negotiations, Theresa May laid out some guidelines she later could not comply with and ended up trapped into them. Brexit means the end of the single market, the customs union, freedom of movement, European jurisdiction, she said: but she did not explain to the country the necessary trade-off between sovereignty and prosperity.

The more one gains in terms of political independence, the more one loses in terms of economic integration.

Jeremy Corbyn’s labourists struggled and failed to present any credible alternatives in the last two and a half years. Corbyn’s contradictions on Brexit are due to an electorate so vast and diverse that it ranges from liberal metropolitan voters who eat an avocado toast in London cafes to workers in the north who live with frowned-upon immigrants, often less educated. Unfortunately, from the point of view of the Remainer labourists, nothing was accomplished.

The problem is perhaps wider and has its roots in the changes of the ruling classes. In the past, in Britain, as in many first world countries, the most brilliant members of the wealthiest families embraced the political career, something that was considered very prestigious up to a few years ago. But in recent decades those who had a choice clearly preferred to dedicate themselves to finance, large companies, the corporate world and entrepreneurship.

The lesson that Britain has learnt over the last two years is that the country works much better inside the EU than outside. Within the Union, the UK is highly respected – it was British politicians, for example, the ones who set the rules of the single market – and has a say in any reform, certainly more than as a hostile neighbour.

This is perhaps one of the most important virtues of the EU, in an age in which we regard with concern the new forces that lead towards the frightening collapse of the global order that was reached after the devastating world wars. The emergency before the eyes of everyone is that of an aggressive system of protectionist sectors.

Under these new alarming circumstance, it is very dangerous to rely solely on the World Trade Organization (WTO). Yet the WTO is fundamental to the economic model advocated by the Brexiteers. The WTO is losing its ability to ensure a free market for goods and services finding itself under the attack of Trump’s America and Xi Jinping’s China.

In the age of Trump and Xi, relying on the WTO to ensure free trade is comparable to relying solely on the United Nations to protect human rights: they both can provide well-intentioned resolutions but, alone, they are powerless.

The promoters of the “Leave” campaign said that Brexit would be “quick and easy”. They said trade agreements with all EU countries would be ready before leaving the Union. As Liam Fox put it, “the free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history”.

Nothing seems to be easy today.

They made exaggerated and false declarations about Britain’s post-Brexit finances, using methods that were later proven illegal, using obscure funding.

Perhaps we should go back to a simple, quiet and humble proposal, as common sense often is. Perhaps we should pause Brexit and take a break for reflection.

We are talking about one of the most important decisions ever made, with the biggest long-term consequences that the British government has ever experienced since the Second World War.

A decision that will affect the lives of future generations in a profound way.

Any psychologist would agree on what the worst time to make important decisions is: the one in which one suffers from an emotional collapse or a breakdown, that is exactly the state in which many British politicians are at the moment.

The decision on Brexit, now that all the cards were laid on the table, must be made with absolute and thoughtful calm.

Brexit in a snapshot.

The roots of Brexit are to be found in the traditional British resentment towards Europe. Not surprisingly, one of the most famous quotations of the legendary Prime Minister Winston Churchill is: “Every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose”. Recently, the reasons for Brexit lie in a general dissatisfaction that’s spreading throughout the majority of the population, along with a good dose of new nationalism, flanked by unscrupulous populists with demonstrably false recriminations and manipulation of the social media and local press, which is more than a business for journalists.

In the United Kingdom, the deep disagreements between the population and the parliament have led to a political stalemate, precisely when England and the rest of Europe need courageous reforms in many areas. Economists have long warned about the social and political effects of the “new economy”, low interest rates and globalisation. But until now, European politics has lagged behind without adapting to change, trapped by populist propaganda looking back to bygone times. But the world does not wait, while Europe withdraws on itself. The consequences are dramatic: the old continent is lagging behind the US economy and emerging markets because of its archaic economic structures.

At present, June 2019, conservative candidate Boris Johnson seems to be the favourite for the top job, even after his recent domestic drama, but world investors are being forced to ask what this means for the only form of Brexit that could quickly disrupt the economy and frighten the markets — a disorderly Brexit on October 31, Halloween.

Mr Johnson has failed to give a categorical guarantee that the UK will leave on that date, saying only that it is “eminently feasible”. However, he has said unequivocally: “If it comes to a choice between no deal, and no Brexit, I would have to back no deal”. (BORIS JOHNSON, BBC WEBSITE, JUNE 19, 2019).

His rival Jeremy Hunt, who might become prime minister by default if Mr Johnson were to drop out, has been more nuanced. Like Mr Johnson, he prefers no deal to no Brexit, but has emphasised the importance of achieving Brexit through a “good deal”, adding: “I would not pursue no deal, with all the risks it involves, if there was the chance of a good deal.” (JEREMY HUNT, BBC WEBSITE, JUNE 19, 2019).

The risks of political miscalculation before October 31 certainly seem larger than they were in the run-up to the initial Brexit date of March 29. Then, parliament was ready and able to exert its natural majority to prevent a no-deal Brexit. Furthermore, both prime minister Theresa May and the EU were willing to accept a long postponement of Brexit. None of these safety valves seems to be in place this time. The markets are reluctant to accept that the next deadline on October 31 might be the real one.

Manuela Andaloro

(info@smartbizhub.com)

 As published in Focus ON’s “on deep” story, May 2019, download original article in Italian here.