Andr\u00e9 Hoffmann has spent years arguing that business must move beyond its focus on short-term profit and help to build \u201csustainable prosperity\u201d as the vice-chairman of Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche and co-chair of the World Economic Forum\u2019s board of trustees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s a cause he has backed beyond the world of business, too, across decades of philanthropy and leadership in environment and conservation nonprofits, including a ten-year stint as vice-president of the World Wide Fund for Nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In his 2024 book, The New Nature of Business, co-authored with journalist Peter Vanham, Hoffmann made the case for companies to account for their effects on nature and society \u2013 to put the cost to the planet on the balance sheet, as he likes to say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But much has changed since. Speaking to Dialogue Earth, Hoffmann says the world has become \u201ceven more short term\u201d, with war, deglobalisation, and authoritarian politics pulling against collective action. In a wide-ranging interview, he warns that climate resilience must shape long-term planning, describes calls to burn more fossil fuels from within the US administration as \u201cpretty terrifying stuff\u201d, and warns that a big financial crisis in the next few years is \u201cnot impossible at all.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The interview has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Andr\u00e9 Hoffmann: <\/strong>That\u2019s an interesting way to open this conversation. Certain things come out reinforced by the current situation, others a little bit less emphasised. The world has become even more short term. Most of the businesses described in the book as working for sustainable prosperity have changed or adapted their strategies, and are navigating the current seas in a slightly different way. The short term is winning again. But the thing I would change in the book\u2019s vision, if I were to take into account the last couple of years, is to put much more emphasis onto social<\/em> capital: how can we move away from \u201cme, me, me\u201d to the \u201cwe\u201d, to the \u201cus\u201d?<\/p>\n\n\n\n I think the answer is one word \u2013 resilience. The idea that we are dependent on imported gas either from Russia, or now the US, for producing simple goods we need in our daily life is something that should spur memories of what happened during Covid: we were all suddenly incredibly dependent on a couple of economic actors in a way which did not allow us to think long term. In corporate thinking, to put some resilience in is key to what is going to happen now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I think the rebuilding of national boundaries is very much intended to split the problem in several places. But what we try to talk about is to do it together. <\/em>The splitting up of big blocs into small constituent parties, of course, is in the interests of autocrats. A couple of weeks ago I was in Washington DC, and the people I talked to in government were telling us very openly, \u201cI\u2019m sorry, we don\u2019t want the European project to succeed, so we\u2019re going to make sure we can do everything we can to break up the European Union because it will be too strong a bloc.\u201d The new nature of business is about purposeful industry which helps us to create prosperity in a sustainable way. It\u2019s not going to happen if we just pitch each other against each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There\u2019s a school of thought, which I really don\u2019t like, that says it must get worse before it gets better. I would prefer us to be more proactive than this. The risk that comes with international relationships, is how are we ever going to stop war if we cannot define it? War is no longer pitching two armies together. It is something that happens constantly. Russian robots trying to do something; disruptions in payment systems between Singapore and China. These things are happening all the time. We see in Europe the extent to which two economies are focussed on this \u2013 I mean, 40% of Russia\u2019s GDP is on armament; Ukraine, probably more. If we were to think in ESG criteria, if you talk about social capital, we are going to need different incentives, because the incentive now is just destroying the neighbour, and that cannot be the right way to look forward. But I cannot at the moment see an international code that would settle the impact that war has on countries. The big wars of the moment have been done against every legal consideration. So this is not looking good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our theme this year at Davos was \u201cthe spirit of dialogue.\u201d We want to talk about growth because of the debt issue. We want to talk about livelihoods and the world of work. We want to talk about innovation, and we have to talk about geopolitics. We\u2019re trying to put all this into the context of planetary boundaries. Right now, we are spending more than the planet can give us, and that is a road to nowhere. The idea of having that dialogue on the table in Davos becomes even more important. How do you lead Davos? Clearly the agenda we\u2019ve discussed since the beginning \u2013 this idea of saying we need to act collectively \u2013 is in danger. How can you trust the government who bombs the people they\u2019re negotiating peace with? How can you trust a government which does this with every international treaty? How can you trust a world order where might is right?<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, we need to measure the impact that AI can have on the system. The US stock exchange is at a historical high on the back of six or seven AI-adjacent companies. Half the countries on the planet are in some sort of conflict, and the US stock exchange is at a historical high. There is a disconnect there which we are going to have to deal with. I mean, the likelihood of a big financial crisis in the next three to six years strikes me as not impossible at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The idea of using AI to make more sense of the flood of data we are generating every day could be fantastically useful. But at the same time, there are consequences of its systemic use. It could be very dangerous for jobs, but for all sorts of other things. Education \u2013 what\u2019s the point of going to school if you have everything at your fingertips anyway? How do you create an education system which allows people to use information in the right way rather than just acquiring it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new nature of business means doing something for sustainable prosperity, and if we want to do that in a way that really benefits the system, we should not refrain from using any tools. AI seems to be a tool just as good as another. We should not throw it away, but it has to be controlled and regulated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Well, the last one I attended, we had a senior member of the US administration addressing us and saying we need to provide more, and we need to burn more, fossil fuels. This is pretty terrifying stuff. You can see the pressure under which he probably is. But that\u2019s no excuse. It\u2019s the example of the bathtub [for fossil fuel use]. You go into a bathroom and the tub is overflowing. What do you do? Do you turn off the tap or mop up the floor? What they are telling us in the US now is that you turn the tap on a bit more, because then you\u2019ll be much better at mopping up the floor.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n We are not talking about the environment and nature because we love it, or because it\u2019s beautiful. What should drive us here is humanity. The best way to do that is to include the cost of nature in the balance sheet. If we realise that nature is not limitless and that it has a price, I think we are going to get on in a better way. If you look at a tree and put value on it, a tree is worth its weight in wood. But it\u2019s so much more than that because it\u2019s alive. It\u2019s connected to the rest of the forest. It\u2019s part of an ecosystem. At the moment, all our economy is purely extractive. But if nature could stand its ground and be recognised as of value, we would be in a very different place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We need to find something that is understood by all. The idea of going deeper and deeper into the science has not helped us. We need to make it more accessible. Maybe there is something we can learn from the populist movement \u2013 this notion of \u201cwhat\u2019s in it for me?\u201d How can I translate the environmental crisis to my own person? That might be a way of getting there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If I talk about nature in a boardroom, people say \u201coh, he just likes birds or trees\u201d. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about sustainable prosperity, which means a circular economy, which means reuse, which means sufficiency. The communication battle will be won if you can convince your reader \u2013 our readers, collectively \u2013 that it is not something that concerns somebody else, but it is our concern, and we can do something at an individual level as well.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Davos trustee Andr\u00e9 Hoffmann on how short-term politics and fossil-fuel dependence are pulling the world away from climate action<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":50000892,"featured_media":60132876,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[758],"tags":[17827,547,50042262],"hashtags":[],"country":[],"class_list":["post-60132741","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-business","tag-climate-adaptation","tag-fossil-fuels","tag-society"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nCountries can see a crisis like the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz as evidence for the case for renewables. Or they can turn to short-termism on energy, however dirty. How to convince governments that renewables are the way to go, even if there is short-term cost?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Many global ESG efforts were made through the 2010s, in particular in Europe and the US. There has been progress in China, too, in building regulations around this. But in a world that is, perhaps, \u201cdeglobalising\u201d, connections across nations are fraying. Do you think the principles of your \u201cnew nature of business\u201d can endure, and also translate to countries of the Global South?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Around us, there is constant conflict \u2013 Sudan, Gaza, Iran. War has no ESG strategy, and it is successfully balkanising interests. What is the environmental case to stop conflict?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
You now lead Davos. There are COPs for climate, biodiversity and more \u2013 collections of stakeholders trying to come together to think of solutions. But what do agreements mean when multilateralism is weakening? When Donald Trump can, one fine day, say we are pulling out of the Paris agreement?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Since your book was released, there has been a lot of scrutiny on artificial intelligence and its potential environmental and social impacts. Many have fears about its impact on employment and work too. Do you see AI as an industry that can still fit within your vision of a new nature of business?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
There is a lot of concern about environmental impacts. Do you think that is central enough in discussions that you see at Davos and other multilateral forums?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
You talk in the book of your family\u2019s pharmaceutical company, Roche, having a purpose to \u201cdo now what the patient needs next\u201d. If we take nature, climate and the environment as our patient, what is the most vital action to take now?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
This is all taking place in an information battle over environment and climate. How do you win this? How do you convince people that environmental change is around them now, particularly when fossil fuel lobbies are pouring money into disinformation?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n