How Europe moves

Original article by Manuela Andaloro published in Italian on Corriere dell’ Italianita’.

COVID-19, Brexit and populism have changed the choices of European Expats 

A recent report in the Financial Times on the impact of COVID on expats has confirmed what many have perceived and experienced for a few years now: the brain drain has stopped.

The EU’s 2019 Annual Report on intra-EU Labor Mobility confirms that although intra-EU mobility has continued to grow in 2019, it did so at slower pace than in previous years.

To date, three quarters of EU-28 expats living in Germany, the UK, Spain, and Italy represent 4.2% of the EU population.

But how have the trends and interests of many expats changed? How has the current pandemic affected the fluctuations? What other causes have an impact on expat choices?

First off, it’s appropriate to clarify the term “expat”. Various definitions can be given to the term, in this analysis we consider “expats” those living and working in a host country by choice or out of non-primary necessity, for a definite amount of time; professionals often with higher education (master degree, post graduate, PhD, etc.). Professionals who have freely chosen the host country for a number of “soft” reasons such as a family, the desire for internationality, and career advancement. Those who, by fortune or merit, had the luxury of choice.

How do European expats experience their choice today?

What factors, dynamics, and political events affect current, upcoming, or future plans to date? What social developments have triggered a remixing of expatriation and repatriation flows?

An interesting interview – part of a recent analysis by the Financial Times – to a return expat expresses some of it: “The lure of the dream expat life had faded” says Tara (not her real name), 38 “Trapped in quarantine meant that the ease of traveling – one of the main reasons for being there – no longer existed. And the rise in anti-foreigner sentiment was another factor” she says, “perhaps because of the increased competition for jobs caused by the economic downturn”. Tara is not the only expat who opts to return home due to the fallout from the pandemic. Significant data points to the fact that we are witnessing a strong upward trend.

To this day, there is no official and structured data on the topic, nor analysis released by official bodies. However, based on recent macroeconomic, political and social frameworks, on EU government data, as well as data from the real estate sector, we can make some hypotheses.

Many factors driving change and second thoughts point to Brexit, to the growth of populism, to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the related perception of how the host country has handled such an emergency. 

In a recent survey on its global customer base, the real estate franchise Knight Frank has revealed that nearly two thirds of expats (64%) say that the lockdown has influenced their decision to purchase a new property in their home country. Of these, approximately 29% said they will return to the country of origin full-time, and 57% are looking for a home to use there in the future.

UK and Ireland – Brain drain and counter-exodus?

Ireland seems to be leading the list of countries of return expats. The most recent figures of the Central Statistical Office show that 28,900 Irish people have returned to live and work from January to April 2020, the highest number in 13 years. And between March and September 2020, the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs  received approximately 8,000 return requests from the Irish abroad.

“Ten percent of our newly built home sales in Dublin in 2020 were from returning expats”, confirms Ray Palmer-Smith of Knight Frank’s Irish office.

The Oxford-Berlin Research study finds that the number of Brits who instead leave the UK for continental Europe is at its 10 year-highest, and about half of all British citizens living in Germany will have dual British and German nationality by the end of 2020.

The numbers are based on data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The British who decided to obtain European passports (in Spain, Germany, France, and Italy) increased by more than 500 percent, and by 2,000 percent in Germany.

With expats reconsidering their options, the implications for relocation of businesses, for international schools, and for global corporations seem to be stronger.

Switzerland - reality check necessary?

Switzerland has a very high number of immigrants, about 25% of the resident population. Over 60% of them are highly educated, 85% are EU expats, often attracted in the country by very favorable fiscal conditions: a strategy, however, that other European countries are adopting more and more frequently. 

In 2019, net immigration was around 55,000, on par with the previous year, but down from an annual average of 72,000 from 2009 to 2016.

As for Switzerland as host country of choice chosen by European expats, the trend seems to be stalling. Life quality does not seem to be satisfactory.

The InterNations Expat Insider 2019 survey on expats shows how Switzerland scores 38th in terms of preferred expat country: the study highlights the difficulties and the cold reality of life in the Alpine nation.

The impressions of expats living in Switzerland have deteriorated in all five indices in recent years: quality of life, ease of accommodation, work, family life, and personal finance. “Switzerland has lost 40 places in the past five years. This is a big drop”, admits Malte Zeeck, founder and co-CEO of InterNations. Affordable health care (61st) and childcare (35th out of 36) are also major issues for expats .

While Switzerland was a major destination for career expatriates just a few years ago, it appears to have lost some of its appeal: around a fifth of respondents express great dissatisfaction .

To date, we can only hypothesize that the Covid crisis will have a further role in confirming a trend that still seems to point to the fact that fewer expats in recent years choose Switzerland as a new destination, or choose to stay there.

Germany - efficiency and humbleness

Germany has a significant and powerful economy which allows expats to have a high quality of life. The population of expats in the country has gradually increased over the years, and to date, expats in Germany represent 3.7% of the population (as opposed to 15% of total immigrants). The level of education in the country is high, as are public infrastructure and health systems.

A recent analysis of the country by Bloomberg shows how Germany tends to often be painted either by outsiders or by insiders in superlative terms  that are however mutually exclusive. A dichotomy, but neither extreme captures the real picture. Externally an enigmatically strong, orderly, efficient, or even enlightened country? Internally painted as a country that lives in the past, slow and calcified? Observations that often say more about observers than about the observation itself.

Germany is an economy, a society, and a culture extraordinarily good at cushioning the blows, but at the cost of giving up reinvention, innovation, and adaptation.

Unfortunately, various German institutions reinforce the tendency towards scarce innovation. The strong and traditional professional training of students proves to be useful to provide highly skilled workers for a specific career. But it does not help to prepare young Germans for the continuous challenges posed by the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the need for life-long learning. 

There is a strong humbleness in Germany: the country has sadly learned from history that “exceptionalism” is not only wrong, but dangerous. And it acts accordingly.

The Expat Insider 2019 analysis points out that the country ranks fourth in the world in terms of work, but social and language barriers often don’t make expat experiences easy.

Germany ranks third out of 64 for job security but among the bottom 10 for ease of acclimatisation. As for families, it seems that only Austria and Switzerland have an even more hostile attitude towards families with children.

A study by Destatis , the German Federal Statistical Office, confirms a strong decrease in arrivals and departures recorded in the first half of 2020; a decline recorded in March that is only due to the pandemic, while the data in recent years had shown a permanent trend in expat arrivals, and increasing if we consider the entire migrant population (2019 data).

For many, both inside and outside Germany, the efficient management of the pandemic has highlighted the country’s appeal: low unemployment, a generous and accessible healthcare system, effective political leadership and a stable society .

Italy - the new era that attracts foreign talent and return expats

Italy has almost 10% of the foreign population in 2019 , in third place after Germany and the United Kingdom, and followed by France and Spain .

Expats from all over Europe settle in Italy and represent almost 6% of the European population in the country (50% of the total number of immigrants, EU data, Istat, statista).

However, in expat polls, at least up to 2019, Italy does not score excellent results.  The cost of living in Italy is “higher than in many other EU countries, but different depending on the region and the city”.

The vast majority of European expats in Italy is concentrated in Lombardy, and in particular in Milan, with 15% of immigrants. The latter has received, from 2015 to date, an inexorable flow of investments in various sectors, including those of EU expats.

As for returning expats, the COVID crisis seems to have played a key role, in combination with the recent fiscal policies implemented by various European governments, Italy among the first to offer interesting tax benefits.

What emerges from the research COVID-19 - L’impatto sui giovani talenti (the impact on young talents) – conducted by the PWC Study Center on the joint initiative of Talents in Motion, PWC, and Fondazione con il Sud (foundation for the South) through the LinkedIn platform during the acute phase of the health emergency – is clear. The aim of the study was to understand how the pandemic has affected lifestyles, career paths, and expectations of Italian talents with an international profile. The results give a strong indication: over 25% of Italian expats abroad will return or have returned to Italy, and almost 80% are considering this option.

The actions implemented by the Italian government are perceived as more effective than those of the European Union, in responding to the COVID-19 crisis. The Italian government’s response is widely perceived as one of the best after the German one.

Will life as an expat in Europe as we know it today survive COVID-19, populism and Brexit?

Health concerns and travel restrictions mean that more expats in Europe and around the world return home.

All too quickly, COVID has stripped many elements of life from expats. Families in other countries suddenly seeming too far, the fear of being confined in a country where anti-COVID measures are not efficient, and the growing populism that could increase due to the inevitable economic crisis are all factors that have exponentially increased the interest of many in moving or returning to their country of origin. International companies will most likely continue to transfer talent across the world , perhaps in less amounts, or especially people in leadership positions. But even so, the constant flow of expats returning home is evident according to government data, recruitment indicators, and to real estate agents of the countries where many of them return. While the figures are still hard to come by, clear and strong signs of lasting change are beginning to emerge.

M.

(info@smartbizhub.com)

Original article published in Italian on Corriere dell’ Italianita’.

Made in Italy, a 100-billion dollar Restart

How can the economy be re-launched in a post-COVID world?

(Original article by Manuela Andaloro published in Italian on Corriere dell’ Italianita’.)

There’s no way around it, this is a time of great hardship, complex mechanisms, and unknown variables. 2020 will probably go down to history as the Annus Horribilis of the past 70 years, given the terrible cost in terms of human lives and public health, and due to the incredibly strong impact on the entire economic system, both national and global.

Still, despite the severity of this shock, Italy’s economy grew by 16.1% in the third quarter from the previous three months, a much stronger rebound than expected following a coronavirus lockdown, outperforming the UK, Spain, Germany and France. The rise in Italian industrial output also points to strong economic rebound.

Lombardy is the 1st regional economy in Italy, its GDP is nearly equivalent to Switzerland’s.

The preconditions – as we have seen in the recent Rapporto Export (export report) issued in September 2020 – for a restart of the Italian nation seem to exist. A strong relaunch is possible by means of Italy’s driving force: Made in Italy. Fashion, Furniture, Design, Food, Manufacturing, Engineering, Tourism: these are all sectors in which “italianness” is an established synonym of quality, reliability, and creativity.

It includes businesses deeply-rooted in certain areas, with a fabric of supply chains and districts in all Italian regions, with a significant push towards international markets. The strength of the “Made in Italy” calling boosts export, increases the competitiveness of the entire Country System, and leverages on both the growing digitization and a now unavoidable global trend: sustainability. A strong attention towards “green” sectors, viewed as an opportunity for the environment and the planet to have their revenge, but also an occasion for investment, growth, and employment for the entire production network. In this scenario, the Country’s priorities intertwine with those of the Green New Deal for Europe, and are targeted towards reaching the goals set by 2050.

In this context, it was very interesting for me to take part – from October 6 to 8 – in one of the few digital happenings that has set a clear and precise end: to understand how to restart the Italian system, and how to do things better than before. “Made in Italy: The Restart” was a three-day program of digital events organized by two leading financial publications such as Il Sole 24 Ore and Financial Times, for the relaunch and recovery of the world of Made in Italy excellence: a series of structured events, and an occasion for debate on the related growth strategies. A stellar lineup of Government representatives, CEOs, and over 40 top managers and entrepreneurs representing Italian excellence were brought together through streaming and simultaneous translation.

Participants included five Italian Ministers, two Undersecretaries, five representatives of Confindustria (Italian industry business organization) – with President Bonomi leading the group, the Governor of Banca d’Italia (central bank of Italy) Ignazio Visco, and over 40 top managers and entrepreneurs embodying Italian excellence. It was a moment of reflection, but also an organized relaunch and amplification of a clear message: Made in Italy is strong, and recognized worldwide as a symbol of quality, safety, and reliability.

Dominated (40%) by the luxury good sector, where Italy stands in 3rd place at the global level, the industry is completed by food, fashion, furniture, and personal care products. Made in Italy goods have also increased in value in the automotive, oil & gas, pharmaceutical, and engineering fields, which goes to show the versatility and eclectic nature of Italian companies.

il Sole 24 Ore, The Banker, interview to Ignazio Visco, Bank of Italy

Innovation is the keyword pushing great Italian businesses, not only in terms of product design, but also in business choices that have consolidated the presence of Italian products on the most competitive international markets (US, Japan, Germany).

In spite of the current COVID crisis, the Made in Italy market strongly affects the development of Italian and international economies, and now enjoys and crucial role on the global stage and in terms of proliferation of new business opportunities in the import and export of all that which is manufactured in Italy, known abroad as a cradle of pristine craftsmanship.

The value of the Made in Italy label has grown by 14% from 2018 to 2019, reaching 96.9 billion dollars (source: BrandZ Top30 Most Valuable Italian Brands 2019). Stronger than the aura of economic and political uncertainty, Italian brands have continued to grow in double digits, year after year, thanks to a solid worldwide presence. Over the past 40 years, “Made in Italy” has become more and more a brand, a label, and an intangible value that increases the competitive advantage of goods. The global demand for Italian products is continuously and constantly on the rise in traditionally responsive markets, but has also and especially grown in emerging economies that look at our country as an example of excellence.

Moreover, the great Italian brands are a driving force for small and medium enterprises that – although not enjoying the same notoriousness – benefit in terms of perceived quality and innovation.

The Italian economy has adequately avoided recession in the past few years, and one of the main reasons is its growth in export, with Made in Italy acting as the driveshaft to achieve comparable and sometimes greater results than those recorded by the German market.

But what is behind the fame of Made in Italy? The positive image of Italian companies dates back to half a millennium ago, in the Renaissance. An occasionally turbulent time, it nonetheless sanctioned the quality of Italian technology and aesthetics, along with a knack for business based upon manual skill and craftsmanship.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Luigi di Maio

Two fundamental take-aways may thus be extrapolated from the topics dealt with by many of the speakers present at the Il Sole 24 Ore- Financial Times 3-day event. The first was summarized by Ministry of Foreign Affairs Luigi di Maio, who spoke of how innovation and digital technology are extremely strong levers for a post-COVID success: “We cannot waste the opportunity that this crisis grants us: innovation and digitization will be the levers of success in the post-pandemic phase, both in Italy and worldwide”. The second take-away is environmental sustainability, a central topic that must capitalize on the great awareness gained in terms of the need for a sustainable approach towards the future of our Planet and of coming generations.

With our excellence, strength, and togetherness as our re-starting block, we shall go far, once again.

Manuela Andaloro

(info@smartbizhub.com)

Sources: FT, Reuters

Original article published in Italian on Corriere dell’ Italianita’.

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)

Perception is not reality: things are not as bad as you might think.

Article and Cover Story by Manuela Andaloro for FocusOn Mag, January 2020

In October 2020, I will have spent 13 years of my private and working life between the United Kingdom and Switzerland. I also had significant interactions with countries such as Germany, Italy (my homeland) and, generally speaking, the rest of Europe. A whole book could be written about all the big life lessons learnt while working and living in multinational environments. In a certain way, this learning curve derives from interpreting and adapting to different cultures or approaches which can, at times, be very similar, all contributing to opening up your mind. Speaking three languages and different passports in one family has helped me understand the approach of the societies of different countries towards reality.

It should come as no surprise that the similarities between people of different nationalities do not depend on their place of birth or passport, but rather on their level of education, culture and understanding of the global picture.

If we take a look at the European population, Germans, Italians, British and Swiss with similar experiences of private and professional life have much more in common than two random British, German, Swiss or Italian citizens with very different backgrounds and education. Similarities are horizontal, not vertical. They are not based on passport and birthplaces.

We all have witnessed how the social and political scenario has gradually changed since the financial crisis of 2008. The media, social platforms and the perception of reality have had a considerable impact on our society, economy and democracy. However, I couldn’t help but notice how the cultural approach and the relationship between perception and reality change among countries like Italy, the United Kingdom and Germany on one side, and Switzerland on the other.

As shown by the IPSOS data reported below, in the first three countries, the majority of the citizens has a rather negative and profoundly erroneous perception of the reality and the events of their country. In Switzerland things are the other way around: the perception of reality is often very positive and, yet, wrong. I fondly remember an ex-colleague of mine who, in my first week working in Switzerland, after spending a few years between Milan and London, proudly said to me: “You know, Switzerland is the best country in the world. We also have the best universities in the world.” “Really?”, I replied with a smile.

I also remember with a hint of bitterness the numerous complaints that other ex-colleagues from England, Germany or Italy used to raise – and still do – against their own countries, perhaps with just as little knowledge of the facts. An overly negative or positive perception of one's own country has equally an unfavourable impact on the common good and democracy. Where does this discrepancy come from? How is it possible to have such a wrong perception, both in excess or defect, of the actual, measurable facts?

Looking at the global picture, various IPSOS studies show that citizens from Italy, the United States, France and Australia are wrong about the key facts of their society, whilst Swedes are more rigorous. Since 2014, IPSOS has been conducting studies on how people look at social reality in their country. All this data converged in the book “The Perils of Perception: Why We’re Wrong About Nearly Everything”, by Bobby Duffy.

The study is based on over 50,000 interviews carried out in these countries, asking 28 questions regarding the number of immigrants, crime rate, teenage pregnancy, obesity, how happy people are, unemployment rate, owning a smartphone and many other social facts. Previous studies have shown that Italians were wrong about many aspects of their society. For example:

• They believed that 49% of Italians of working age were unemployed, while the real figure was 12%

• They reckoned that 30% of Italians was made up of immigrants, while the actual figure was 7%

• They thought that 35% of people in Italy had diabetes when in reality, only 5% did

The data reported by IPSOS is quite worrying and embraces all sectors of public life in the country. As regards the economy, in 2014, Italians believed that 49% of them were unemployed whilst the real unemployment rate was 12%. That’s like saying that one Italian in two was looking for work and could not find it.

Italians believed their economy to be similar to that of Greece, when, in reality, the latter has a GDP equivalent more or less to Lombardy alone. Italy is the second largest manufacturer in Europe and one of the top ten world economies, but more than one Italian out of 7 was not aware of it. In terms of population, the over-65s currently represent 22% of the total population but for the Italian public opinion they were 48%.

The median age is 45 but Italians assumed it was 59. The distortion in the economic and demographic area can be partly explained as an exaggeration of real facts such as the economic crisis, precariousness of work and ageing of the population. People in the United States were also wrong about many aspects of their society. 

• Americans thought that 17% of their population was Muslim when the actual figure was around 1% 

• They believed that 24% of girls aged 15 to 19 gave birth every year when the actual figure was 2.1%

On the other hand, Swedish citizens seem to be well informed about certain facts. For instance, they assumed that 32% of prisoners in Sweden were immigrants when the actual figure was 31%. But also the Swedes are wrong: they believed that 24% of the population was unemployed, when it was only 8%, at the time.

But why does the relationship between perception and reality have no balance? Why do we tend to misrepresent the facts, to have incorrect – often negative – perceptions and, ultimately, we complain about our reality that, objectively, is positive, works fine and provides high living standards, especially from a European perspective? Why such a big gap between perception and reality?

IPSOS has vetted many possible explanations, ranging from the education system to the characteristics of the media and politics, the degree of trust and the attitude towards the government.

In a globalised, fluid, complex society, reality becomes more and more difficult to grasp, therefore the perception of public opinion risks straying from real data to the point that a deep gulf divides what is true and what is believed to be true.

Two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Walter Lippmann, in his historic essay of 1922, Public Opinion, already noticed how easily public opinion ideas could be distorted. He argued that public opinion often does not reflect reality, which is too complex to be truly understood: opinion depends on the external pseudo-environment that people construct on the basis of prejudices and stereotyped visions of reality, in a more emotional way than a rational one.

However, despite its malleability, public opinion has become increasingly important over the years. 

Furthermore, there is the question of scarce credibility in the institutions and a soaring individualism.

The Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman accurately caught the meaning of the crisis of institutions: he described modernity as a liquid society, a world ruled by consumerism, in which all the solid and collective certainties of the past – religious beliefs, states, parties – have collapsed, leaving individuals lost in chaos and uncertainty.

In such confusion, the selfishness of individuals easily emerges: as Giovanni Orsina writes in his book La democrazia del narcisismo (The democracy of narcissism), modern citizens are selfish mass-men who have lost all trust in others and considers themselves as the only standard to judge reality around them. For this reason, they feel entitled to believe what they want and do not accept any opinion other than theirs, as shown by the growing polarisation of politics and the barbarisation of public debate. The mass-man distrusts institutions – that are now liquefied – the facts and experts’ opinions. Sociologists tell us that even the most introverted ones have the capacity to influence around ten thousand individuals in an average lifetime. Just think of how many people we might have influenced in our life so far, whether knowingly or not. We should make the best use of the power we have, in a proper way.

As educated and modern individuals, citizens of the world who have – mostly – an understanding of social and global dynamics, who care for our society, our children and future generations, being aware of all this, we have the duty, the right and responsibility not to give in to the empty concept of the “selfish mass-man” and to push forward a cultural model of citizenship that can confront with the great challenges of our time.

M.

(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.