Word of thanks and speech by Gerard Kleisterlee to mark presentation of Honorary Doctorate from the University of Leuven.
Leuven, February 2, 2005
Your Eminence, Mr Vice-Chancellor, Mr Chairman, professors, invited guests, friends, colleagues and family members.
Today is a day of celebration, both for the University of Leuven as it celebrates its patrons' day, and for myself and my two fellow honorary doctors. It is always nice to receive recognition for one's hard work, but it is especially good to be honored in this way by a famous institute such as this.
I speak for John Sexton and Roger Penrose as well when I thank the University of Leuven for the great honor which it is bestowing on us today. And we are, of course, also aware of the obligations that come with this honor.
I consider myself very lucky to be here today in the company of two brilliant scholars. The work of both Professor John Sexton and Sir Roger Penrose is among the most pioneering in modern science today. It is based on a profound commitment to the issues that are of concern to the world. This is true of Professor Sexton's work to further our understanding of concepts such as 'law' and 'the state under the rule of law' and to define a global system of law, as well as of the work of Sir Roger Penrose, in which he is constantly formulating innovative advances relating to our understanding of human consciousness and the way this shapes our lives and perception.
Today I have the honor of addressing you on behalf of my fellow honorary doctors. I am aware that I cannot do justice to their respective specialist fields, so I shall speak primarily from my own perspective, from the perspective of someone who is at the helm of a global company, the perspective of someone who is also very much involved with the universities of technology in the Netherlands in my capacity as a supervisory director, and, last but not least, from the perspective of a European citizen who cares about the future of this continent. And it is this that I would like to talk about today: how can all of the parties involved - the educational establishments, government and industry - work to consistently modernize Europe to ensure that there will be a good future ahead for our continent.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are living in turbulent times - to put it mildly. We are struggling with issues relating to Europe's identity, our relationship with the Muslim communities within our societies, the fight against Islamic extremism, the zeitgeist of blasé indulgence, and an economy that just can't seem to get off the ground. We are faced with the challenge of how to make the world a safer and more honest place, the challenge of how to adapt our society to suit the requirements of the new era, to give it new buoyancy and to prepare it for the future. If we are to build patiently and carry out our ambitious plans to modernize our society, we need stamina and a vision. In other words, we need a new élan for Europe!
And where better to start than within the walls of a knowledge institute par excellence - the university.
The concept of knowledge plays a central role in many of our present-day discussions. I think it is fair to say that this is more the case now than ever before. This is true not only of a bastion of knowledge and science like a university, but also of politicians, economists, trade union leaders and entrepreneurs. Not only in the Netherlands or Flanders, but in all countries of the European Union, and particularly in western Europe.
And the reason why knowledge has become such an important concept is simple. There is a general consensus that the way in which we organize our economy and its institutes around knowledge and the application thereof will play a crucial role in determining the welfare of our society. It is knowledge that is going to have to keep Europe afloat - all the more so because other sources of value creation, such as industrial production, are increasingly playing a less important role in our economy, partly due to our high labor and location costs.
There has recently been widespread concern about the lack of dynamism in our economy and society. Western Europe has frequently been depicted as a somewhat stuffy open-air museum, a region that is in danger of being crushed between the economic power of a flexible, dynamic America on the one hand, and, on the other, Asia with its explosive expansion, led by superpowers like China and India.
Ladies and gentlemen, are our prospects really so bleak? Are we doomed to play second - or maybe even third - fiddle on the world stage after centuries of being in the lead? I would like to share with you a few of my thoughts on this.
There is a paradox here. On the one hand we have just seen how a European consortium was able to present to the world the largest, most advanced passenger airplane - a prime example of how success can be achieved in Europe if we pool resources and make effective use of advanced technological know-how. And there are examples like this.
On the other hand, there has also been plenty of evidence in recent years to support the proposition that Europe needs to get its house in better order. Within a short space of time we found our competitive position weakening and our productivity, and therefore the growth in our prosperity, falling behind that of other regions. In other words, our society seemed at risk of slowly coming to a grinding halt.
And so, towards the end of the last century, people started to realize this on a wide scale, which led to much critical European self-analysis. Amongst other things, this gave rise to the objectives formulated in the year 2000 by the European Commission in Lisbon to transform Europe into the leading and most dynamic economy in the world within the space of ten years. A few months ago there was a rather disappointing mid-term review of these very ambitious aims. It showed that in many respects we have only fallen further behind.
Incidentally, this very day the European Commission is announcing new measures which it intends to implement in order to inject new life into the Lisbon agenda.
So what exactly is it that is hampering our progress? Opinions on this are divided, but what we do know is that certain aspects of our European society and our culture are an issue here. Research carried out recently by the European Commission into entrepreneurship shows, for example, that there are huge differences in this field between Europe and other regions in the world.
The research shows, not very surprisingly, that more Americans than Europeans seem to have entrepreneurship in their blood. No less than 61 per cent of the Americans consulted said they would prefer to be their own boss, as opposed to 45 per cent of the Europeans who said they sometimes considered taking such a step. Most Europeans prefer the idea of a fixed income and the security of a permanent job to the many opportunities associated with being an independent entrepreneur.
Whereas for Europeans the glass is half empty, for Americans it is half full; certainty and security are not a prime consideration for them. What is important to Americans is to make the most of the chances and opportunities that arise from an entrepreneurial approach. Many Asian economies do not yet have a history of accrued gains and benefits and so do not have the sense - that often goes with this - of there sometimes being more to be lost than won. People in Asia expect to have to be flexible and adaptable.
We, on the other hand, often let ourselves be guided by a fear of change. Our behavior is characterized by the avoidance of risk.
There is also a certain irony in this preference for security among Europeans, especially when one considers that this is increasingly a false sense of security. In the current economic climate, and in view of the speed at which major transformations are taking place, certainty and security - at least in the material sense - are more a thing of the past. Clinging to these values is more like maintaining an illusion, and thus holding back desirable change. This is not the most functional approach to take at the moment.
So how should we proceed, then? First and foremost, I think we need to organize ourselves more around innovation. And, amongst other things, innovation requires a different way of thinking - entrepreneurial thinking. This, it would seem, is no longer necessarily a part of the European DNA.
What do people like Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Larry Page and indeed men like Anton and Gerard Philips have in common? Above all, they all became famously successful businessmen. They became so successful because they spotted opportunities that others did not see and pursued these energetically and with determination. Sometimes these were opportunities that had been dismissed by others as absurd.
And that may well have been the key to their success. Albert Einstein once said: "If an idea does not seem absurd at first sight, then there is no hope for it." In other words, it is precisely this out-of-the-box thinking that can uncover unprecedented and very lucrative opportunities. If you continue to think within the existing parameters, you will create more of what already exists, but if you are able to look at things in a new light, you are already well on the way to innovation.
Thinking in this way does not come easily to everyone. We find, for example, that young people on our training programs are still taught too much of yesterday's knowledge and there is not enough incentive for them to explore new territory themselves, to push the boundaries. Hardly anywhere do you find entrepreneurship as part of the standard curriculum, not in secondary education, higher education or university education.
I know that discussions about entrepreneurship as a part of the way of working and organization are also being held within many universities. To make our economy more dynamic we need, amongst other things, to increase cooperation between industry and educational and research institutes, so that we achieve a better return on our existing knowledge, thus giving rise to new forms of activity. This may already send shivers down the spine of many academics and researchers. Does it mean that base economic considerations are going to determine scientists' research agenda ? Or that the funds needed for fundamental research will slowly but surely dry up?
Ladies and gentlemen, these are indeed legitimate concerns, concerns that we need to tackle in an appropriate way. But they should not lead us to become entrenched in fighting a rearguard action. The rear of the line is precisely what we need to get away from.
It is often said that people do not like change. Be that as it may, I no longer find this a very interesting assertion. It would be better if, partly through our education system, we were to learn the skills we need to participate in change successfully, simply because change is unavoidable. And in order to embrace change we need to be prepared to take risks and to bid farewell to past gains without having new ones to take their place.
Incidentally, I do not doubt the need for fundamental research, but it is important to find the right balance between applied and fundamental research. There are bound to be fluctuations in this balance. However, it is precisely in a knowledge economy that the opportunities for further development of the core tasks of universities are impressive, to say the least.
In effect there is little wrong with the knowledge infrastructure in western Europe. In many areas it is even still unsurpassed. Our educational establishments, our universities are among the very best in the world. We just need to capitalize on them more effectively by introducing an entrepreneurial vision. There is no doubt whatsoever that this is indeed possible.
The University of Leuven is, of course, a prime example of this. It is very much an enterprising university. It is a source of new activity and therefore one of the cornerstones of an innovative regional triangle that has a high profile within Europe. Together with the Eindhoven and Aachen regions, Leuven forms a triangle that is bursting with new forms of cooperation, innovative activities and actual innovation. It is a bona fide knowledge network.
Philips is heavily involved in many of these activities and we reap the benefits of this every day. This cross-border and inter-sectoral cooperation between universities, other knowledge institutes and businesses could be a classic example of the new innovation structures that Europe needs.
The same is true of our own High-Tech Campus in Eindhoven. It is on the way to becoming a hotbed of new activities and innovative businesses, where the level of cross-pollination generates an almost tangible enthusiasm. Here, experienced researchers suddenly feel rejuvenated, revitalized by so much scintillating innovative energy. This is the very kind of élan that Europe needs.
In all of this, the governments in Europe are faced with the not-so-easy task of promoting the desired new climate. In many countries, governments are already actively working on this. At some stage in this process they will have to tackle what is perhaps the most difficult task - to make the labor markets more flexible. Minimization of bureaucracy is also high on the agenda of the governments of many of the European member-states.
I am in regular contact with government policy makers in Europe and in other parts of the world as well. In my experience I have found that if people are willing to listen to each other, then there is a lot they can learn from one another. It is also clear, however, that we shall have to find our own way forward in Europe.
A common mistake made in change processes is to try and copy successful models from elsewhere. For example, it would be very tempting when reorganizing the labor markets - which is essential if we are to make our European economy more dynamic - to copy the example of how this was done in the United States. Even though there may be a lot we can learn from that, the fact remains that Europe is not the United States.
Europe has a different social tradition, a different history. Even our alma maters are specific to Europe. Many of the great thinkers from past centuries, people who were the architects of our cultures and traditions, worked at the great European educational establishments. Their legacy represents an invaluable body of thought that has helped us achieve a standard of welfare that is the envy of the rest of the world.
Of course, it would never be right for political and economic adjustments to be made at the expense of what might well be called the 'soul' of Europe. In this respect, initiatives to promote prosperity - however necessary they may be - will always ultimately have to be checked against the extent to which they improve the level of well-being. 'Hard' business factors will sometimes have to give way to other, more deep-rooted values.
When economic changes have been introduced in the past there has been a certain tension between the economic and the ethical and moral values. It may well be a part of the 'human condition' that we always have to struggle to some extent with this tension.
In industry, an awareness of this tension has led to 'sustainability' becoming an integral element of strategy. In this regard, you can see sustainability as the outcome of an integrated, balanced consideration of social, economic and environmental responsibilities.
Sustainability has really come into its own in recent years. Once a 'green' issue, it is now a fully integrated part of the policy and way of working in many companies. It is important to point out in this respect that companies consider diversity among the workforce to be an important element of sustainability and a source of innovation and creativity - something that Europe should also take seriously.
In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say that I have not even the slightest doubt that we will succeed in creating a new élan, a modern Europe that will take the lead once again. After all, we Europeans can boast a history that is full of imagination, resourcefulness and entrepreneurial spirit. But that is history. We are going to have to rekindle and strengthen this imagination, resourcefulness and entrepreneurial spirit ourselves. And on top of that we are going to have to produce leaders who are able to overcome an often defensively minded public opinion and who will create scope for change for the better, and thus work with patience and perseverance to build the future.
Not so long ago I read a list of measures that the various European countries are already implementing or at least preparing in an effort to shape the European knowledge economy within their borders. I was surprised by the variety of activities, but more than anything I was surprised by the creativity.
This has convinced me that all parties can take part in the process to shape the future of our continent. This means the governments, industry and the educational establishments. And don't let's forget that as part of this process we will have the opportunity to define ourselves more clearly as citizens of Europe, with a European soul.
Ladies and gentlemen, your university has a fine reputation to uphold when it comes to contributing to the future. The fact that you have chosen to honor Professor John Sexton, Sir Roger Penrose and myself here today with an honorary doctorate fills us with gratitude. I would like to say, on behalf of the three of us, that we hope and expect that your future in the European knowledge economy will be at least as interesting as your rich past. And I hope that our paths will cross frequently as we work together on joint projects to help shape our future.
Thank you for your attention.
| 