The Responsible Society

Introduction

The key factors in this case study are leadership, vision, concept, strategy, long term planning, and execution.

Jan Peter Balkenende, Prime Minister of the Netherlands for eight years from 2002 until 2010, had a meteoric political career. An academic by profession, he only entered national politics in 1988 at the age of 42 when he was first elected to the House of Representatives for the Christian Democratic Alliance party (CDA). Only four years later he was elected leader of the party and led it to a surprise victory in the 2002 general election, in which the CDA gained 14 seats. He then headed four successive administrations as Prime Minister in coalition with a variety of other parties until defeat in the 2010 general election, after which he resigned from the CDA leadership and retired from politics at the age of only 54.

Dr Balkenende studied economic and social history and law at the Free University. He started working at the Netherlands Universities Council, the united body of Dutch universities, and went on to become a staff member for social, economic, and financial policy at the Wetenschappelijk Instituut for the CDA, the party's Research Institute. He was also a member of his City Council, Amstelveen. After some years he was invited to undertake a PhD: the subject he chose was Government Regulation and Civil Society organizations. He was granted his doctorate in 1992, and the following year he became part-time Professor of Christian Social Thought on Economy and Society at the Free University in Amsterdam.

Since leaving politics, he has returned to the academic world as well as pursuing a career in business. He became a partner in Corporate Responsibility at the global consulting and accountancy firm EY (formerly Ernst and Young) and he is currently an external senior advisor to the company. He is also a supervising board member of ING, the Dutch banking and financial services corporation. In addition, he is Professor of Governance, Institutions, and Internationalization at Erasmus University, Rotterdam, and he is involved in the Goldschmeding Foundation and several other foundations.

During his eight years in office as Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Dr Balkenende made the encouragement of innovation a government priority. In February 2018, he talked to the Owls team about how he went about it.

---

Source: Jan Peter Balkenende and Robert Low, https://archive.org/details/Breakthrough2180910/page/n173/mode/2up
This work is in the Public Domain.

Vision/Concept

"For me there are three important stages. The first is in the 1980s, the second is the Innovation Platform (set up by the Balkenende administration) and the third one is what I am doing now.

"My party, the Christian Democratic Alliance, started in 1980. It was a combination of a Roman Catholic and two Protestant parties. In the 1980s, the CDA was busy with the concept of a responsible society and formulated its basic principles in 1980 - Public Justice, Differentiated Responsibility, Solidarity and Stewardship - but in the 1980s we were thinking about how we could work out that concept: what it meant for different policy sectors, for education, family policy, economic affairs, social security issues and so on. One of the items on the agenda was the issue of technology. In those days we talked about the new world in which we were living.

"We spoke about Alvin Toffler and his book The Third Wave, just to give one example. Or John Naisbitt's book Megatrends. People realized in the 1980s that something was changing so we discussed technology and innovation. We started with a working group, a study committee, and that led to the publication in 1987 of a report with the title: Technology in a Responsible Society. Some of the group had a political background, and there were also people from the universities, from the business sector, and from the unions, and together we addressed the question: how can we have a clearer focus on technology and innovation policymaking, in a responsible society? We discussed what it meant for education, for the business sector, for growth strategies. That was my first experience. I thought it was fascinating to think and talk about technology.

"Our think tank was an independent organization but of course

we were connected with the Christian Democratic Alliance. So it was not only a matter of writing a report, but of organizing conferences about the issue, and it also led to discussions within the CDA. Later, there was a follow-up in election manifestos and so on. I had a great time with a great team of people in the think tank and at that time we were really focusing on the issue of technology. Just underlining the fact that we had such a steering committee said something about the atmosphere within our party: we felt that we had to do more in the sphere of innovation and technology.

"Then in my PhD thesis I also included innovation. At that time we discussed how we could have a better policy regarding innovation issues. Should we have new institutions, innovation centers? Or could we use, for example, the Chambers of Commerce, etc? That was one part of my PhD thesis.

"The second stage seems to me the most important one: the Innovation Platform. I had been a member of parliament since 1998, and I was the party's financial spokesman. I was involved in social security issues as well and then I became the leader of the Christian Democrats

in 2001, after an internal party crisis only eight months before the elections. The political landscape in the Netherlands was changing. We saw the end of the life cycle of the purple coalition, the coalition of the Labor party and two liberal parties. There were new political opportunities, I had to fill the gap at that moment, and we won the elections in May 2002.

"At this point, I should say something about the atmosphere I was confronted with. You could see that there was a willingness to change things. Usually you only become Prime Minister if you have been a minister before that. But for me it was completely new. I became Prime Minister after I had been a member of parliament for only four years, which was remarkable. I did not have any government experience but I had a clearly defined agenda. That was my advantage, as a thinker, as a former staff member of the think tank. When we had a previous crisis in my party in 1994 we lost 20 seats. We set up a working group which produced a report called: Nieuwe wegen, vaste waarden (New pathways, fixed values), meaning that you must have stable values but you have to find new ways of thinking. I was the secretary of that working group. If you have difficulties, always go back to the question: what is the DNA of our party? What are our core values? What do these values mean for renewal of thinking, of your own party? I think it is good to discuss new ideas, because it stops the party from acting as if, when you have such a crisis, it is only a matter of personal differences. You have to find something new, and the best thing you can do is go back to your party's DNA, to your values, and to finding new ways of thinking.

Planning and Execution

"In 2002 it was the end of the purple coalition. We were also confronted with the terrible killing of Pim Fortuyn. I knew him very well. Suddenly everything was changing. I won the elections and suddenly I was Prime Minister. But there was a need to have a new kind of stability because it was a risky time. People were not happy. They were saying, 'I have to wait too long for my operation. My parents cannot get the right care facilities. Sometimes we don't have teachers in the classrooms'. That was the moment we said, 'We have to change things'. The first thing we said is we really have to carry out a programme of reform. We have to change our social security system and pre-pension facilities. We have to change the Dutch health system. That was one agenda - the reform agenda.

"The second point I made was that it was important to talk about values in society. It was necessary to underline the essential component of values in society. It was necessary to talk about how people behaved towards each other. What about showing respect for others? What about dignity in society? Can children grow up in a safe world?

"Respect was the key word. Later on Dutch organizations started the initiative 'Day of Respect'. I thought it was necessary to talk about it. I was criticized when I did so - 'Ah, he wants to go back to the 1950s, it's an old-fashioned approach'. But outside the square kilometer of The Hague people understood what I meant. They said indeed we must have a safer society, a society with a heart. So that was the second component.

"The third one had to be financial policy. We had to make a lot of savings.

"The fourth dimension was innovation.

"My second coalition consisted of my party, the Christian Democrats, the more conservative liberal party, the VVD, and D66, the social liberal party. Together we were convinced we had to do much more in the sphere of innovation. Why? Because the Netherlands was falling behind. In 2002 we were confronted with financial and economic difficulties, an economic slowdown, and we were falling behind the rest of Europe. We were sliding down the global competitive index of the World Economic Forum. We decided we should do much more to strengthen our position and the structure of our economy. We were also convinced that the world was changing.

"We could see there were a lot of new developments so we said we had to focus more on the issue of innovation and new technologies. Usually you invite a committee to give some advice to the government. We said no, we should do this another way. Let's have a completely new organization, which we called the Innovation Platform. Representing the government we had the Prime Minister, the Minister of Education, and the Minister of Economic Affairs. The second group consisted of high-ranking officials from the business sector, for example the CEO of Philips, but also people from the SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises).

"The third group came from the universities. The idea was, let's learn from each other. This was not a traditional organization. We would not meet in The Hague. We would go to universities or business. And we had to start from scratch. So there was not, in the beginning, a clearly developed agenda. We said, let's work together and analyze what the position of the Netherlands is. We discovered that we had to do many, many things.

"I will give some concrete examples just to clarify what happened. In the beginning it was a bit difficult to work out what exactly the agenda was, what we should develop in the way of new ideas. Gradually we discovered that we had some difficulties in the Netherlands. For example, we discovered that a lot of SMEs were not taking advantage of the knowledge of universities and knowledge centers. So we said we must develop an instrument that stimulates SMEs to benefit from the knowledge centers. We started an initiative called innovation vouchers. We gave financial support to SMEs, worth 7,500 euros, and they could use it to tap into those knowledge centers.

"The second thing we discovered was that for a lot of SMEs it was very expensive to do research. So we said we must have cooperation around research activities in the pre-competitive phase. We launched what we called Innovatie Prestatie contracts, innovation agreements, to facilitate pre-competitive research and development activities.

"The third example was that we discovered that research in the public and private sectors were separate worlds. We ought to have exchanges of researchers. 

We also said it is rather remarkable, we have a lot of gas revenues in the Netherlands so we should also spend more on Research and Development (R&D) activities. That was more of a macro issue. We decided to organize a big event so that people could see things were changing, to illustrate what we were doing with the Innovation Platform, and also what we could learn from each other. So we had an Innovation Congress. I think there was room for 2,000 people and in two weeks it was fully subscribed. So the first phase of the Innovation Platform was analyzing what the position of the Netherlands was, what could be improved, what actions we should take, and we organized many activities and events. That was one.

"The second point was that because of the fact that we had an Innovation Platform on a national scale it also generated enthusiasm at a regional level. When I was in Eindhoven or Utrecht or elsewhere you could see that regional innovation platforms were being developed. That was good and important. I am talking in an enthusiastic way about it, but we were also criticised, as it always goes, by members of parliament and the media.

"But we just carried on and the funny thing is, there was a professor, Ronald Plasterk, who was on television from time to time criticising the Innovation Platform. Why do I mention him? We had elections again in 2006 which led to a new government in 2007: a coalition between my party, the Christian Democrats, the PvdA (the Labour Party), and a small Christian party, the Christian Union. The question was: should we continue the work of the Innovation Platform? There was no discussion about it: yes, we should.

"Despite the fact that he had been very critical previously, Mr Plasterk became the first Vice Chair of the second Innovation Platform, and he played a fantastic role. The second Platform was again composed of people from the government - the Prime Minister, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Economic Affairs - people from the business sector, and also from NGOs and the university world.

Then something remarkable happened. We said it's not only a matter of technology: we also should work in the sphere of social innovation. We formed a group that devoted itself to issues of social innovation.

"We also decided we should be more specific about innovation in the sphere of health. So there was a separate platform for innovation and health. We thought we should have more head offices of big companies in the Netherlands. How could we make the Netherlands more attractive to them? We also discovered that a lot of people from other countries had difficulty entering the Netherlands. When you wanted to attract knowledge workers, it was difficult.

"So we said we had to speed up the entry procedures for them. We also said innovation is a matter of imagination. Hans de Boer, who is now leader of VNO NCW, the employers' association, was busy with the idea of creating a tulip-shaped island in the North Sea.

"Everyone said it was a crazy idea but the idea was that we were strong in offshore developments, so when he came up with this idea to have a tulip-shaped island in the North Sea, it attracted publicity all around the world. So you could see that the second Innovation Platform was attracting attention and we were discovering how we could change things.

"In the second Innovation Platform we said we had to define six key areas in which we could be strong in the Netherlands. How could we bring different groups together, logistics, for example, or agriculture? We were strong in those sectors. So the idea of defining those key sectors was to make the Netherlands stronger by focusing more on them.

"That is the general story of the Innovation Platform. I was happy that we took the initiative to do it. It resulted in a lot of actions, more than 180 of them. And it generated new ideas. It also had consequences for policymaking, for example financial ones. There was the issue of how to spend more money on research and development.

We wanted to spend a part of our gas revenues on research and development, just to give one example. It had to do with the universities' financial streams. We had responsibility as a government, so we wanted to manage the follow-up of the ideas of the Innovation Platform.

"But universities and business were involved too. Today, for example, we say if you want to be successful in the sphere of innovation, you must have triple helix constructions, meaning you must have cooperation between government, knowledge centers, and business. In fact, the Innovation Platform was a triple helix avant la lettre. "I ceased being Prime Minister in October 2010 and we had a new government under Mark Rutte. Unfortunately they did not continue the Innovation Platform. My idea was to have a new platform, not on general ideas because that had existed for several years. Our idea was to have another platform more about execution and implementation. But the government decided not to have a new Innovation Platform.

"They said, instead of the key areas, they would start with a topsector approach. This meant that the government defined 10 top sectors which play a key role in the Dutch economy. It was a matter of combining forces, generating new ideas, and public support of private initiatives. In fact, that was in line with our recommendations. I myself continued to be active in the sphere of innovation. Since then the Netherlands has reached the top five in the Global Competitive Index. So you can see the influence of the Innovation Platform. It was a contributor to a greater awareness regarding innovation and technology.

Generic Factors

"I am involved in innovation today because of the connection with the whole concept of the new economy. We are living in a time of disruption, things are changing very rapidly. It is the world of 3D printing, nanotechnology, the internet of things, big data, robotics. There is a technical dimension and a social dimension, the sharing economy, social innovation, and it is a matter also of the moral aspects of innovation. This whole discussion around the new economy cannot be separated from the global agenda.

The global agenda has to do with sustainable development goals, climate change, and the circular economy. You can see so many changes at the moment that I think it is fascinating. How can innovation be relevant to finding the right solutions? From time to time I refer to Peter Diamandis's book, Abundance - The Future is Better Than You Think, a very interesting book with a description of all the global issues of today. His message is that we do have the technical means to solve them but there are too many vested interests and traditional forces that are hindrances to take advantage of these new solutions.

"Let me go back to my work in the 1980s. They were the first years of my party, the Christian Democrats. We were talking about what the basic principles of our party were, how we could develop a new view of society, and what the concept of a responsible society was. It was a matter of thinking, having ideas, and then putting them into practice. That is exactly what you can see here.

"At EY, I am involved in corporate responsibility. That means that everything has to be done to fully integrate sustainability into business models. That is one of my key areas at EY. This approach starts with the conviction that it is not business as usual. There is a need to change. It starts with having ideas. What does sustainability mean for my company? Then it is a matter of developing this into a strategy. When you have defined your strategy, then it is a matter of implementation, execution. Then you have to evaluate. Then you have to report on it. And then the cycle starts again.

"When I look back at my career, it always starts with having new ideas. That accounted for the concept of a responsible society, that accounted for the fact that we had to do much more in the sphere of innovation, and that is the reason why we came up with the idea of an Innovation Platform. And now in the world of corporate responsibility it is a matter again of having ideas and vision. It is my conviction that it is not business as usual, there are reasons to change things fundamentally.

"If you are aware that things have to change, then the question is: what should you do about it? Then you develop views, strategies, make proposals, and so on. That accounted for the concept of a responsible society, that accounted for doing more in the spirit of innovation with the Innovation Platform, and that accounts for sustainability and sustainable-goal business models. The idea, vision, and disruption are key.

"And more than that: in this time of the new economy it is all about creativity, it is about new ideas, otherwise you can forget it. This is the key element. Companies can suddenly be there and they can disappear. The life cycle has changed completely. So you must have this awareness that you are living in changing times. And that, of course, is fascinating.

"Why did we start the Innovation Platform? It was all about strengthening the position of the Netherlands and focusing more on competitiveness. We had to have new ideas. We were convinced that there were many reasons to do more in the sphere of innovation. That was the general framework.

We had to start from scratch. That was the moment of innovation breakthrough, so we said hey, wait a moment. Our analysis was that there were not enough contacts between knowledge centres and SMEs.

How could we develop strategies, develop new ideas, to have a better connection? Just to give one example. That was the reason we defined many issues that had to be solved, and why we generated those ideas. That led to a kind of concept, which I have described. That accounted for the first and second Innovation Platforms. Later on sometimes it had to do with government responsibilities, then it had to do with universities' and business' responsibilities.

Current Goals

"I would like to move on to two things I am faced with now. First is the Dutch Sustainable Growth Coalition and the second is business models. When I started work at EY, Paul Polman and I discovered that we had a lot of Dutch companies that are high on the Dow Jones sustainability index. That was the moment we said we should join forces. How could we work together? The idea was to reflect together on sustainable growth business models. How can we fully integrate sustainability into business models? What can we learn from each other?

"We produced four reports. The first was about these business models - a theoretical framework, then examples. What are the indicators? Sustainability has to do with climate change issues, environmental issues, energy, human rights, transparency, your relationship with your employees and your clients - these are all elements of sustainability. That was the first idea, how we could integrate sustainability components into business models. And let's be concrete.

"The second question was, and that is also connected with this model: what does it mean for leadership and corporate governance? How do you organize this type of thinking within your own organization? What does it mean for the tone at the top? What about ownership within the organization? What about remuneration systems? What about business strategies, what about defining your key performance indicators (KPIs), what about measurement of - and reporting about - these activities? But there is another element: how to foster a culture of responsibility, how to improve awareness: what you might call ownership within the organization.

"Then there is the creativity of your own organization. For example, I was once listening to Pieter van Oord, CEO of Van Oord, and he said, in relative terms we do not spend so much money on R&D. You can criticize us for that but we benefit from the creativity of all our workers. It was very interesting. They use the knowledge, expertise, and creativity of their own employees for their organization.

"Let me say one more thing about the Dutch Sustainable Growth Coalition. The third issue we raised was sustainable innovation. The question was: how can companies contribute to the sustainable development goals of the United Nations and to the issue of climate change? It was a very interesting report because the question is: what can we do about it? I am convinced that asking yourself the right questions is key. Let me give you a concrete example. About two years ago I attended the World Entrepreneur of the Year meeting of EY in Monaco. There were famous CEOs - Ford Motor Company, Starbucks, Coca-Cola, WPP, and the rest. The key question to all the CEOs was: what is your legacy? How are you contributing to society? And then you get another conference. Raising the right question can be very helpful.

"It is also a matter of how to organize things. That is why the business model is so key. That brings me to my second point. Everyone is talking about sustainability. But the question is, what does it really mean for your approach as a company? This is a fundamental process. If you talk about sustainability it must be an integral part of your mindset. You must have the awareness. But then the question is, what does it really mean? Are we talking about the values of our company? Is there a connection with the business strategy? What does it mean for your KPIs? Do you have a stakeholder dialogue about these KPIs? Is it an honest story? Then it is a matter of how to implement your goals within your own organization - organizing critical mass. I think these things are really key.

"Peter Bakker is the president of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Once he gave an interview, which was headlined "Accountants will save the world". You can imagine, we were very happy with that quote. But it was not so much about accountants. It has to do with the fact that if a company is saying we want to integrate sustainability into our business model, we will change our KPIs, then the question is what about the concrete results: is there awareness to measure them? And are you willing to ask an external auditor to analyze them? Is it a true story? It is a matter of organizing it in the right way. There we have the circle.

Enabling Factors

"A concrete example in the Netherlands is AkzoNobel. Together with DSM (the Dutch chemicals and nutrition conglomerate), AkzoNobel is a leader in the Dow Jones sustainability index. They are highly respected sustainable companies. For example, AkzoNobel produces coatings that can partly keep out the heat of the sun so that you need less energy for air-conditioning systems, and coatings for ships, so you can have the same speed using less energy. There is a connection between sustainability and products. They are also connected with the Human Cities Coalition. At the same time, they were confronted with PPG, who wanted to take them over (in 2017). So we have a struggle between sustainable business practices and the hard world of takeovers, financial interests, and shareholder value. But at the same time things are changing.

"Last year I was invited to speak at a conference of the Singapore Institute of Directors. A thousand people were there. It was all about the question: what do sustainable development goals mean for our businesses? You can feel things are changing. You have front-runners, and you have people that are lagging behind. People like Paul Polman, Feike Sijbesma (head of DSM) and Frans van Houten (head of Philips) are leaders. They will change the world. In my opinion it is a matter of how you change the mindset and how you change the mainstream.

"I am convinced that the role of business is changing. In my presentation I usually refer to Milton Friedman saying in 1970: "the business of business is business". Today it is Michael Porter (the American academic) who is saying: "No, it is a matter of creating shared value". A company is there to generate economic value, otherwise you cannot exist, you cannot invest in R&D, you cannot keep your people employed. At the same time you are there to create societal value by addressing the needs of society. And you have to combine these two components. I believe that this is a new reality.

Lesson Learned

Always be aware of the DNA and values of your organization. Use the creativity of your organization and its people.

Try to make a connection between the Sustainable

Development Goals, Climate Change, the Circular Economy, the New Economy, and the Moral Dimension.

If you have analyzed things well and have the conviction to carry out reforms and implement new ideas, stick to them.

In order to be successful, especially when it comes to innovation, it is essential to cooperate with other organizations and sectors. Invest in new alliances with relevant stakeholders.

Leadership requires long-term thinking. In order to accomplish change, you need to develop a long-term view.

"Partly it is a matter of defining long-term goals. If you want to review your CO2 emissions, you can try different rules to reach that, but that is the goal: we want to reduce our CO2 emissions. Or you want to only have clean energy. These things can be part of your organizational strategy. These are the longer-term goals. But then you can put the other question: how do you achieve them? That is a matter of instruments, and also of scenarios".

"Has the Innovation Platform led to new ideas? One element you can see now more and more of in the Netherlands is start-ups, because start-ups are all about generating new ideas. They are all about creativity. Traditionally, a company like Philips has been interested in start-ups for a long time. They offered facilities for start-ups to do their business and they had connections with them. In the province of Limburg we have, for example, the Brightlands Chemelot Campus (which describes itself as "a creative breeding ground for innovation in smart materials and sustainable manufacturing" and hosts 2,500 people engaged in a variety of innovative activities).

"A lot of start-ups are active in the sphere of smart materials. At the medical faculty of Leiden University, you will see a lot of startups in the sphere of health. In Rotterdam we have three initiatives: the Erasmus Centre for Entrepreneurship, the Cambridge Innovation Centre (CIC), which has to do with start-ups; and PortXL, which is encouraging start-ups in the sphere of port development.

"We have food initiatives at Wageningen University. And we have energy-focused start-ups in the Northern region. Today there is a kind of admiration for start-ups. The problem is that a lot of start-ups fail, because their innovations and ideas do not lead to a scaling-up of activities. That is the reason why today we are trying to develop connections between the big corporations and start-ups. That is the model you can see now in Eindhoven, in Limburg, and in Rotterdam. This is increasing and people really like those new ideas, that creativity".

Why have the United States been so successful in innovation, often from individuals developing their ideas, like Google which was started by two young men. Why haven't the European countries with all the money spent on innovation been able to come up with something as dynamic as that?

"I think it has to do with the American spirit, entrepreneurship. There is an economic dynamism in the US, that is their big advantage, in Silicon Valley and all the other initiatives. We can learn from that in Europe. Although we have good universities and good companies, so much more can be done. We need a kind of new European dream. In the 1950s, after the Second World War, political leaders said that should never happen again. They focused on creating a European economy and economic cooperation to create a better life for people.

In the 1980s politicians and economists said yes, we have a tariff union but we do not have a real single market. That led to the strategy of Europe 1992 with the free flow of goods, capital services, and people.

"All this created a kind of new dynamism. Then people said Europe is the place to be, here you can find the world's biggest consumer market. Everything went well until 2008. Then we had the financial crisis in the US but a year later it was no longer about the US, it was about Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and France. People said, what is happening with Europe? Is it a museum? Now things are going better. But it's not enough. We must have a new European dream. Europe can really make a difference when we act on sustainable development goals, climate change, or the circular economy. We should do much more on that. We need a new European mindset. And it will help if there is a leadership that enables it, that thinks in other terms about Europe. So far it has been too defensive.

Leadership

"Leadership has to do with long-term thinking. I would like to underline the necessity of that. If you talk about leadership and politics sometimes it is only about what is in the news today, what are the polls saying, what about the next elections? This era requires something completely different. You must have a long-term view. Let me give you some examples about the Netherlands today. At this moment we are engaged in a big discussion about the future of producing gas. Production is declining. That means that the revenues for the government will go down and you have to think about the structure of your economy in the longer run.

"The second example is climate change. We have to protect ourselves against the strength and the power of water, the rising sea levels, the melting of the ice caps in the Alps, and so on. So we must have a very good strategy to keep our feet dry to protect ourselves. We are all concerned about global warming. We say it must not be higher than 2⁰C and even better 1.5⁰C but if you believe this is a long-term goal, you have to act now. Then we have the issue of the aging of the population. It has consequences for the pension system, for health, for housing, etc. We have a very plural society. What about respect in a plural, very diversified society? These are key issues. They require long-term solutions.

"The good thing is that we have the instruments to improve long-term thinking. For example, we have the Central Planning Bureau in the Netherlands. They analyze longer-term issues. If a political party makes all kinds of promises, it is confronted with the Central Planning Bureau. They will ask what the long-term consequences of its policy programme are. When you have a new government, the CPB will ask what the longer-term aspects of its proposed policies are. These are good things. We have the Wetenschappelijke Raad voor Regeringsbeleid, the Scientific Council for Government Policy, and they too are doing research into future-oriented issues.

"We have the Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, the Netherlands Institute for Social Research, and the Central Bureau of Statistics, and they too are analyzing what is happening in Dutch society. I think these things help. If you talk about leadership the key element is, do you have a long-term view, a long-term approach? And how can you make connections between long-term strategies and the steps that have to be taken now? I also like the phrase 'a serving leadership'. It is not about you as a leader, it is about serving society.

"What sort of leadership is required: structured or non-structured? Some people say you need both, but quite a lot of people say no, you just need a vision and a strong leader.

"I was chairman of the International Advisory Board in Rotterdam, and we had a discussion about how you can connect different elements. In this respect we used the wording oxymoron, meaning a combination of contradictory words. For example, a bottom-up strategy is an oxymoron. Bottom-up means to take advantage of start-ups, of new ideas, of creativity. But at the same time you must have some kind of structure. So a phrase like bottom-up strategy means to benefit from unstructured ideas but at the same time to try to have a kind of structure that enables you to make use of those ideas. So you need a combination.

"My leadership, as Prime Minister, was content-driven. I was not very well known when I became leader of my party in 2001. So in the beginning I had to do a lot of television programmes and sometimes I thought: What am I doing? But after that first phase when people got to know me, I said I want to make really good speeches about what must be changed in the Netherlands. So that was about content.

"Then I said I want talk about our competitiveness in the Netherlands, I want to speak about reforms, I want to talk about the migration issue, I want to talk about the country's international position - that was my answer to my new position as leader of the Christian Democrats: let's talk about content, what should change. When I became Prime Minister, of course I didn't have much experience. I had never been a minister before but I had a clearly developed agenda. That was the reason why we made a success of our reform policy, and despite the fact that we were criticized by so many people, by unions and economists, we managed to carry out those reforms together with our social partners.

"Another example: in 2004 I was in hospital for four weeks, it was a tough time. There was a demonstration organized by the unions in Museum Square, Amsterdam, and they were saying: oh, this government is a horror cabinet, etc. That was what people saw from the outside. But with other ministers I had confidential meetings with the unions to say we must change things and we have to work together.

"So the people thought, hey there is a kind of struggle between the unions and the government but at the same time we were having internal meetings with the employers and the employee associations to find a way out. On the basis of those contacts, we were able to reach a social agreement with our social partners. So we carried out the reforms despite the initial criticism, and that was a great result. You need each other to change the nature of things".

Long-Term Planning

"I am convinced we need targets on the horizon. That goes for the Netherlands, for Europe, and for the world. I had lunch with the current ambassador of China to the Netherlands, and I asked him to tell me a bit about the 19th party congress. He said yes, it was an interesting congress, it was about the future. It has two stages: the first stage is till 2035, and the second stage till 2050.

"In France, they have elected a President with a clearly defined reform agenda. I am happy that Macron is trying to change things in France, that is good. It is a matter of showing courage.

"I have tried to say something about what keeps - and kept - me busy, but also something about today's global agenda: the Sustainable Development Goals, climate change, the new circular economy, but also values, purpose, legacy - these things are really key now. It's all about our planet, a better world, and creating conditions for a better life for everyone, now and tomorrow".