What would I do differently next time, if asked to lead transformation again?

 A very powerful question indeed, leading to constructive reflection on things gone wrong and whether these were preventable and how! 

Having lead several transformation programs, some of which got delivered at compromised levels, here are my set of doing it differently next time list:

Make desired-outcome count – in tangible and individual terms:  While everyone has goals linked to their role in the team, assuming everyone playing his/her part will lead to achievement of overall outcome is a big assumption.  There would always be unsaid expectations, dependencies and assumptions that will reveal themselves later when things fall short.  I wish I had kept big enough reward and penalty upfront tied to overall achievement that would act as glue for all members to stick together through the course and keep them motivated to stretch to address unrealized gaps and unplanned disruptions. 

Make the entry to the team more rigorous:  Neither the gap in commitment and nor in competence is going to be easy to live with.  Formal fitment process, if compromised in the name of expediency or no-alternative scenario, will come to hurt.  I wish I had been less accommodating in on-boarding partial fits (for whatever reasons) and more direct and quick in offloading misfits (or outfits) during the course of journey without much delay. 

Never allow the Program Governance meeting postpone:  Program governance exists to provide direction and decisions, monitor outcomes and evaluate performances with clear consequences in a transparent and fair manner.  There are several ways to make governance effective, say by using standard frameworks, consistent formats, open & structured discussions focused on issues and risks at hand, recognition of interdependencies, data analytics etc, etc, etc, but all these levers loose their might, the moment governance meeting gets rescheduled, for whatever seemingly genuine reason.   

YES, the above lessons are not intellectually incisive or sophisticated, but look simple and obvious- yet these are the one that, I realize if adhered to, would have improved the outcomes by some notches for sure.     

Deliberative approach to creating MARKETS of TOMORROW

World Economic forum has recently released insight report:  Markets of Tomorrow, Pathways to a New Economy, that presents powerful approach towards developing new markets, which can have transformational benefits to societies.    

Consider the following:

1.     Some of the new technological, social and institutional inventions have capacity to create great economic value, while being inclusive, sustainable, and supporting broader social and environmental objectives. 

2.       Report offers twenty such markets, as reference, classified into three categories:

a.       Safeguarding planetary boundaries: Electric vehicles, Plastic recycling, water rights and quality credits, hydrogen, reforestation

b.       Empowering and protecting people: Broad based antivirals, care, data, digital transformation services, Precision medicine, Unemployment insurance, skills capital, Hyperloop based transport services

c.       Advancing knowledge: AI, Genes and DNA sequences, Satellite services, Space fights etc.

3.     Each of these markets hold transformation promise and are at different level of maturity and impact, that also varies from country to country.  Some of the general-purpose technology offerings like AI may have vast applications and hence their impact is further multiplied by use-cases that involved actors may creatively employ.

4.     Report points out at SEVEN TARGET CONDITIONS that needs to be evaluated and worked upon, if markets of tomorrow have to take root and create desired impact.  Market actors, be it government, public and private institutions, or businesses, have to collectively or exclusively work on the gaps to take market to next stage of maturity.

5.    Market creation starts with Invention, that is product or asset or service that can be produced at scale.  Next comes set of willing Producers that are ready to reliably produce to serve the market- and these may include current players in adjacent markets, start-ups, or public institutions. Some products need complimentary infrastructure to be in place, for iots consumption.  Take the case of digital financial services that require physical and institutional infrastructure as prerequisite.  Another market condition is the size of demand that is likely to be in short and sustainable basis? Next set of three conditions are not only pivotal to market evolution, but often pose significant challenges in getting met.

6.    Setting up clear market Standards for the new products, wherein different players are innovating around different product characteristics and are competing using these as differentiators form important market condition.  Emergence of standards early may discourage IP creation and inventions in alternate but associated technological solutions.  However, at the market level, absence of standards may suppress demand as customers find it difficult to commit and may wait for standards to emerge.  Defining standards, in terms of cope and specificity has to be balancing act between consumer confidence and producers’ IP-led competitiveness. 

7.    Putting Value to the new product or asset, needs sufficient convergence and judgment among different actors.  In case of absence of reference points, the Value attribution may vary from very high to free of any monetary number.   Further, Value at aggregate may be immensely more that Value of each similar item- think data-base.  In some cases the VALUE may not be as such in core as in Use-case application- in which case the incentive to build on the core withers away. Drawing consensus on the VALUE of new product and stability and transparency around this VALUE would reflect growing market maturity.

8.     Codification of new product or asset defines the legal framework and define property rights around which transactions can become legally viable and commercial contracts can be drawn.  Complexity in defining scope of legal rights that are equally well understood among all actors in the markets is going up, especially with innovations that are building on earlier IPs and involve digital technologies to bring out significant value. “What kind of codification is possible around genes and DNA sequences?  Will the intangible information behind them or the tangible sequence of nucleotides be codified?”, asks Report as an example.

In nutshell, report presents framework, defined in-terms of key questions, that market creators can leverage to identify, plan and prioritize their efforts- be at national or cross-industry levels -to fully exploit the transformational potential of new markets. 

The framework that is easy to comprehend, has the power to reveal the challenges and impediments that can act as inhibitors to emergence of new markets, while taking care of the landscape in which the analysis has to be made. The agenda for the market actors become evident as well. 

The report contributes immensely to the literature around institutional approach to new Market Creation. 

Government Banks: Instrument for managing macroeconomic challenges– at what cost?

 Urjit Patel book, beautifully explained the multidimensional ramifications of the phenomenon, he calls, banking sector fiscalization, wherein Government Banks (GBs) and other financial agencies that it owns, are used for managing day-to-day macroeconomic challenges, than allowing these institutions to be efficient intermediary between savers and borrowers. 

        

• 

1. We see ample evidence of this phenomenon in Banks being used for liberal credits to boost consumption, Farm loan waivers, support unviable MSME, underwriting of Government disinvestment targets, and sustain employment in Public Enterprises. It dilutes Banks incentive to be market efficient, nor exercise greater risk management discipline, and enhance dependence on Government to bailout, and meet capital adequacy norms, for example.  None of this is disputable or is mostly understood as well.…and this books authoritatively adds more substance (in terms of chronology, instrumentalities and figures) to the appreciation of the collateral damage that banking sector fiscalization has on economy in terms of high instances of NPAs, increased cost of capital, enhanced risk for depositors and overall weakening of economy to manage downturns and shocks.
2. It would have been interesting to know, how effective has Government been in meeting its objectives and overcoming short term socio-political-economic challenges leveraging GBs, and some would say to some extent, but at high long-term cost.  And were there any viable alternatives that were consciously ignored and would have been equally effective and palatable to Government.  Question is that using GBs to deliver its objectives comes as easy and convenient first option or the only the most prudent and viable option for the Government, driven by political needs and for-ever on- election seasons.  While the generic trend may looks to support the first case, it would have been interesting to get insight into options that were available (suggested by RBI) and still not exercised by Government of the day. 
3. Clear highlight of the book, and the most readable one. is the middle section titled as clean the augean stables, wherein Urjit takes us through the financial sector reforms trajectory woven around recognizing, resolving and ring-fencing the NPA mess. with the help of 9R framework.  The establishment of Central Repository of Information on Large Credits (CRILC) in 2014 rightfully marks the start of the journey, for it provided the critical information around the view on borrower-wise and bank-wise exposure, an essential baseline to conduct Asset Quality Review and report realistic assessment of distressed assets. 
4. Early attempts to revitalize distressed assets included schemes like SDR, 5:25, S4A (collectively called alphabet soup!) but with limited success.  May 2016, marked the passing of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC), which not only promised time-bound route for resolution of distressed assets but also instill the real fear among promotors of losing their firm/assets to outside bidders and that liquidation is a real possibility at the end of road.  Despite this process being available, there was hesitancy among the lenders (mainly GBs) to push for initiating IBC process for understandable reasons, which meant that RBI has to be empowered, under BR Amendment Act 2017 to issue direction to banking companies to initiate IBC process for default companies on resolution of stressed assets.  We all recall with amazement and sceptism, the declaration by RBI in September 2017, of 41 accounts, with aggregate exposure of Rs 5 trillion (45% of total NPA) to be taken up under IBC process. 
5.  To avoid been perpetually involved in identification of accounts, on case-2-case basis and hence invite criticism, it was prudent on part of RBI (in February 2018)to issues prudential norms regarding account classification as special mention accounts on default of payment and eventual reference to NCLT in six months.  RBI believed that the provision that NCLT can be avoided by undertaking viable restructuring accredited by rating agencies, within six months, would be shot in the arm of bankers to push for improving recognition of asset quality and also work with promotors to revive assets.  However, future events did not endorse the RBIs beliefs.
6. Book recounts set of events and role played by Government, Lenders, Borrowers and their lawyers that led to serious dilution of the IBC effectiveness, most notably by removing timelines and by making the reference to IBC non-compulsory.  Urjit presents, quite convincingly and sometimes regretfully, his understanding of the possible motivations, compulsions and perspectives different stakeholders behind installing the pathway that was so meticulously created by RBI.  Nevertheless there is still credit to be given for resolution of 45% assets identified under first 41 accounts, and in general there is more vigilance and pressure on promotors to take care of quality of assets. 
7. Book asks a very interesting question- if courts had allowed RBI to issue directions for specific accounts, may be RBI could have come with another supplementary list in 2018-19 and continued with the cleaning process case-by-case!  What makes this books narration of the events different, is its complete obliviousness of the actors involved, within the RBI, Government, Banks and third parties. 
8. On the aside, book covers the emergence and subsequent dilution of PCA framework, debate around bad-bank, strengthening of RBI enforcement capabilities to detect operational frauds, recapitalization of Banks, Sector and MSME specific interventions and its impact on health of GBs and overall financial sector stability.
9. Book looks into reasons of high instance of frauds in GMS against that in PBs.  Market induced discipline is very high in PBs as any loss of reputation can lead to run on the bank by the depositors, besides curtailing their ability to raise fund in the market.  In cases where the market mechanism is weak, one would expect regulatory oversight to be stronger, which is actually not the case. 
10. Infact, regulatory disciple imposed by RBI is quite effective in case of PBs, in comparison to GBs.  Banking regulatory powers are not ownership neutral ie to say that RBI does not have / unlikely to have same level of control over GB as in case of PB, especially in the areas of corporate governance.  RBI cannot trigger liquidation, revoke license, force merger, nor remove directors and management at GBs.  Vigilance as source of discipline is effective only in the form of preventive vigilance, while punitive vigilance seems to be quite weak, in case of GBs.  Interestingly there seems to be correlation between instances of fraud and rise in stressed assets problem. 
11. Urjit doesn’t lay much hope of GBs improving in its efficiency and competitiveness and sees PBs increasing their share in banking sector, which he believes is not necessarily a bad thing!

Transparency, Teaming, Technology: Recalibrate 3Ts to amplify impact!

So much has changed and so much is still uncertain, making people-leaders’ jobs most exciting and impactful.  Demands for quick results on multiple fronts, are keeping Management deeply engrossed in making and executing people decisions.  In such frenzied times, it helps define priority themes, that tie all decision making and help amplify the impact of various interventions and produce better outcomes.

Never underestimating the power of context, uncertainty and volatility, I see three themes that would have the amplifying effect, and thus needs to be on HR Leaders’ agenda. They are – Transparency, Teaming, and Technology. The 3Ts need to be recalibrated to new demands, assimilated and integrated into every aspect of their work. Listed below are some of the questions that would facilitate examining the readiness of 3Ts and help define the transformation agenda:  

Enhanced Need for Transparency

Transparency depends upon the visibility that Management has, and openness to share what they know.  Both these elements need to be relooked into and strengthened:

1.      The importance of having deep talent-transparency is never more recognized, then at these times, when organizational needs are getting redefined.  To what extent is the data in the HRM system sufficient to give the kind of visibility required?  What level of confidence is there on completeness and validation of personal data in terms of health and wellness, or professional data in terms of expertise, competencies, skill profiles, or organizational data in terms of roles, reporting relationships, KRAs, career history? What about details of part-time employees, gig workers, FTEs, consultants, retainers etc? Are there data elements which we never bothered to capture or kept under voluntary section, which have now become mandatory, if we have to take timely and informed decisions?  How quickly can we fill the gaps?

2.      Workforce productivity is under scanner, especially as the workforce composition gets diverse, to include remote workers, gig workers, contractor workforce, consultants etc. and there are decisions to be made to deliver work in the most cost efficient and reliable manner.  To what extent is there real-time visibility on the workforce productivity defined at individual level (in different contexts), available through combination of reliable system data and discussions with managers, that can be leveraged in making talent deployment and development decisions. Do we have data to decide which jobs and which employees are more productive delivering at office or at home?

3.      Cost management is desirable at normal times, and most critical these days.  Driven by steep cost saving targets, conventional cost elements that were never under scanner, are now being questioned.  Suitability of the people related interventions would get evaluated based on the cost savings potential and impact on staff morale or overall productivity.  To what extent is there visibility of costs at right level of granularity and attribution to understand the cost impact of various people decisions?

4.      As consequence of operating context and delivery model changes, future skills requirements will get redefined, including the skills that needs embedded within in-house staff, and those that would be served through outsourcing partners or gig-workforce.  To what extent have the future skill (say Digital skills) needs in exiting jobs, new jobs made transparent to the employees so that they re-calibrate their self-learning journey, in the absence of which employees would either invest in learnings that are not relevant (lured by too many offers and options on-line) or stay frozen not knowing how and what to upgrade themselves on? 

5.      Strategic units across organizations are deeply engaged in environment scanning, scenario envisioning, risk assessments and option creations to account for uncertainty around the pandemic trajectory and recovery paths, and propose actions.  To what extent are the management assumptions and viewpoints about business shared with the workforce, so that employees are able to make-sense of management decisions and map implications on themselves, thus better prepared to manage transitions?  To what extent is their democratization of new and emerging opportunities and talent matching that is perceived as fair? How to ensured that people decisions taken are not seen as in conflict with Organization stated Values?

 

6.      Even in the best of times, manager-employee dialogue plays significant role in determining employees’ effectiveness, but in these transition times, this is pivotal to organizations’ resilience and agility.  Many of the workers are new to the concept of remote working, and may not be comfortable with Managers not available to walk-up-to anytime they like!  Managers need as much help in adopting to new forms of engagement with dispersed and diversified workforce as employees do. It calls for far greater role clarity, expectation management and frequent work-related feedbacks.  To what extent, are Mangers empowered and enabled to engage with employees to address concerns coming out of new operating conditions and be an effective channel in conveying right messages to the employees and also to gain honest and timely feedback?  Some managers may need greater support in managing difficult conversations. On-line, then ever before.  Have the managers learned the art of transmitting empathy on the net, while delivering honest feedback and tough decisions?

 Enhanced Scope and Nature of Teaming

Team work, while gaining in importance, may actually get compromised in the uncertain times, as new work-norms get established and team membership becomes more porous, transitionary and diverse. 

7.      If teams are indeed the basic unit of delivery, then to what extent have you configured the decision-making frameworks that consider team level competency, productivity, costs, risks and motivational requirements?  How are the different types of teams, varying in terms of skill composition, geographical dispersion, employment status performing and where are the interventions required?

8.      Virtual and dispersed team effectiveness needs greater emphasis on role clarity, work distribution, credit sharing mechanisms, information sharing and communication protocols than co-located teams.  To what extent, have you enabled employees to become effective part of teams and deliver to desired levels?  The cross-boundary teams, Technology, Security, Admin, IT, HR. that worked so well, ensuring work moved from office to home seamlessly, has revealed some lessons on effective collaboration that works in your context.  To what extent, there is deliberate effort to capitalize on that experience and improve cross-boundary collaboration as a general norm?

Enhanced Technology Leverage

Enhanced expectations from Technology to support new ways of secure working, greater employee empowerment (DIY norms) and data based decision making would mean that HR-technology Heads need to revisit the portfolio of capabilities already deployed and planned for deployment.

9.    In the resource constrained situation, it is time to relook at the current level of usage of the technologies already invested in.  To what extent are the rolled-out functionalities leveraged and what would it take to improve the usage score- is it retraining of users, or establishing clear data ownership or stopping the workarounds or making the applications accessible on mobile?  To what extent focus is to ensure that data that goes into MIS creation is robust and dependable, to justify the excitement about the visualization that specialized Apps and analytical tools are capable of delivering? 

10. There is obvious emphasis on need for increased usage of RPA for process efficiency, usage of chatbots for improving employee engagement and use of collaboration tools for better coordination between dispersed teams.  Understandably there would also be pressure to complete the digitization initiatives.  Further, trade-offs may be required between investments for capacity addition to existing infrastructure to allow for remote working and introduction of new applications within HRMS suite.  Is there clear mechanism to ensure that technology projects prioritization (from digital technology suites, eg.) is completely aligned to business usage and commitment to extract value with short payback period?  Is there mechanism to ensure that technology choices are made based on realistic understanding of the delivered functionalities of the proposed solution and not on the promises that are reflecting in the development road map?  How has the Technology Investment criteria being strengthened for greater accountability and realistic value-adds?

While the above may not be the complete list, but may help leaders (and that should include Business, Services function leaders as much as HR) to engage in quick diagnosis and reassure themselves that there are no blind gaps that are undermining effectiveness of other interventions.  

Some Corporations are better prepared, and to that extent would require few adjustments, while others would have complete transformation agenda coming out of self-diagnosis on these themes. 

Whatever be the starting point, the need to move swiftly and surely is the need of the hour for all, 

Do you agree? 

Dealing with Millennial matters- Its important and not that DIFFICULT!

If you are in business of selling to or delivering through the Millennials, you would have surely experienced that the competencies required to influence and relate to them need to be different.  Women in general or parents of millennials are no better in dealing with them.

Chip, through his intense work in this area, offers through this book offer insights into the source of tension and also provide set of competencies that managers need to develop to be able to deal with Millennials effectively.  At the theme level, CHIP goads Managers to appreciate that:

1 They may be suffering from the unintentional bias towards self-experience, which pushes them to compare every action of Millennials with their own behaviour, when of that age.  Managers (mostly baby boomers)  perception of Millennials, reinforced through dialogue among their own generation , does not allow them to interpret the behaviours differently, or see from the eyes of Millennials

2  The onus is on the more mature partner to adapt and make relationship work– try to like them and not be like them

3  Millennials are the first generation who can learn, get informed, seek answers and manage their life without formally learning from and reaching out to the authority – thanks to technology, education and information access. 

How Managers perceive Millennials (and example of how successful managers address this!) :

1.  Autonomous and do not respect process adherence and schedule commitments as important (explain the importance of process linked to sustainability of outcome, allow flexibility wherever possible- some of the cause-effect connections are not obvious to them yet)  

2.  Believe they deserve and are entitled to the best whatever their contribution (explain the incentive scheme and differentiated rewards and decision-making criteria)

3. Self-absorbed-and indifferent- Preoccupied with their personal needs for trust, praise and encouragement-(recognise that jobs don’t define them, help outcome to their personal need- invest in creating interest)

4.       Defensive- they want to be told when they are doing well and not when doing poorly---(Dialoguing in coaching mode than evaluating mode helps)

5.    Curt and abrasive communication style with little regard to authority (Actually informality on their part may represent authenticity, don’t take it personally.)

6.   Unfocussed- They have hard time staying focussed on tasks for which they have no interest or consider meaningless—(No one has bothered to explain the big picture and value of their effort and yes they can multi-task)

7.       Argumentative-(Listen with open heart- Resistance is closer to commitment than compliance is)

Millennials expectations from Managers

1.   Don’t hold us from opportunities because of lack of experience—we shall compensate with enthusiasm and energy

2.      Listen, if you ask for my ideas, opinion or comments- show that I am taken seriously

3.       Explain, in sufficient detail, what is expected of them- show flexibility in defining the how and when details to us

4.  We also look for having good relations with older workers, to go to them as counsellor for tough times

5.   Provide rewards that are meaningful to us- don’t assume what motivates us!

6. Provide feedback on how they are doing in non-threatening and non-belittling way- show us the alternate way, instead.

Book provides several examples of how to deal with biases and tense situations while dealing with Millennials and what differentiates successful managers from others, based on serious field work and research.  Readers can surely relate to these situations and also can judge their own responses to identify where the tweaking in response during the next interaction would help.

Even if you believe that labelling of behaviours and responses based on birth years is too much generalisation and of limited help, still this book clearly reiterates that it helps to invest in understanding the other party perspective, while suspending ones biases and also to modify ones actions to evince that desired response and evolve the relationship to next level of effectiveness. 

Believing-in and Living the Engaged Employees Strength- The Kronos way!

 Engaged employees are a motivated and work-inspired lot- that helps organisation deliver great financial results.  Happy employees, not only serve customers better, but also help attract talent to support growth.  Yes, we understand this part. 

What Aron has brought out in this book is the greater alignment Kronos has achieved in with what we know and profess and how to live through these beliefs, supported by policies, practices, and leadership actions.  Chapter after chapter Aron shares how Kronos has strived, with ample success, to live through the values: open communication, trust, humility, family-first etc. 

Questions worth reflecting, if you want to go the kronos way! 

1. If living values (and exhibiting right behaviours) are important for your employees, how much weightage is given to HOW part during employee annual assessment?  Are there instances to convince employees that short-changing behaviours are unacceptable even in light of great outcomes?
2. If you believe that company is fully supportive of employees of all backgrounds, faiths, genders, geographical locations and religious orientations, then are your policies and practices truly non-discriminatory?  Are there instances wherein Organisation has taken public stand in response to external events, regulations or demands, in line with its stated Values?  
3. If you believe every employee needs a great manager. have you defined expected behaviours by great manager with inputs from employees?   Do you individually assess and share scores on these behaviours with Managers, using Managerial Effectiveness Index?  Have you provided managers training material, and other support, including psychological safety to work on the gaps?
4. If culture is important, have you defined and branded our culture itself, like KRONOS calling it work-inspired and linking it to its three core competencies: character, competence, and collaboration.  Do leaders show up every day mindful of their responsibility as culture’s chief caretakers, promoter, and voice.- , one personal interaction, e-mail, or public gesture at a time.  
5. If you believe, deep trust among team members is essential, then to what extent do you assume “positive intent” and competence on the part of others as the starting point.  Do you engage others by asking questions and listening, and putting your own “agenda aside to operate in the best interests of the customer and company.” Do you see a willingness to challenge one’s boss and stand by one’s beliefs often as marks of a truly engaged employee, so hence very much appreciate the arguments?  And yes, you do not micromanage, Do you?
6. Who owns career, it is an individual and not the organisation? If so, Do you hold grudges when your best people leave? Do you want to cut ties, and do you resent their subsequent success? Are your organizational policies designed to retain people at all costs, putting organisation short term interest ahead of individual career? Do you welcome Boomerang employees?
7. If you believe in the disrupting power of innovation and continual need to reinvent wining strategy, Do you have plan to self-upset your success formula, by asking team from within to be the biggest independent and empowered competitor – to design product, solutions or delivery model that has power to disrupt your winning game?
8. If collaboration is valued, then Is there platform for publicly expressing thank-you among colleagues? Do you publicly acknowledge great managers? Is there monthly dashboard that tells Management how are the recognition programs doing?
9. If strategy needs effective execution to deliver, then Do you brand and communicate the strategy, making it a tangible part of every employee’s workday and spurring two-way dialogue about strategy and its execution?  Do you communicate with the conviction that employees have ability to handle the truth?  
10. If family first is the genuine belief, does it reflect into your vacation policies, office time flexibility, financial support programs and even office location?  Are there several stories floating in office corridors to convince the new joinee that you really mean it? 

If leveraging people as powerful strategic weapon is your aim, then answers to the above would reveal enough to define your coming Monday priorities!  Reading the book will help you with potentail practices that can be applied with suitable amends in your organisation as well. 

Global Risk Report 2020: Environmental Risks- Most likely, Most Impactful, Least Readiness

What can be more priority seeking than the fact that all top five risks identified in The Global Risks Report 2020, issued by WEF, are linked to environmental issues- beating Economical, Geopolitical, Societal, and Technological categories. 

As per the Report: 

Top five Risks in likelihood:  Extreme weather, Climate action Failure, Natural Disasters, Biodiversity loss and Human-made environmental disasters. 

Next five set of Risks: Data fraud or theft, Cyberattacks, Water crises, Global governance failure and Asset Bubble.

In terms of high impact, if materialized, although with relatively less likelihood: Weapons of Mass Destruction, Information infrastructure failure and Infectious disease spread.  

Climate realities are getting categorised as the planetary emergency for their known and unknown impacts across multiple areas of interests and with severe consequences:  Potential loss of life and immigration among those living in vulnerable low-lying regions, drop in crop-yields, water scarcity,  disruption in trade supply chains (with new options available through snow-melting in Arctic), increased insurance cost for assets build in vulnerable regions, and societal costs of inconvenience linked with extreme weather.

Decline in Bio-diversity may show-up in hard to predict sudden collapse, while not counting the loss of opportunity for human benefits on account of extinction of unexplored species.  At the same time, solutions suggested to stem bio-diversity loss may involve socio-economic costs: organic agriculture comes at the cost of poor yields, requiring more land to serve required produce.  Around 12 million hectares of tropical forest worldwide lost in 2018.  Disappearance of Amazon at rapid rate not only reduces the carbon absorption capacity of earth but also increases dryness in the atmosphere leaving ecosystem more vulnerable to fire and drought.  Wild forest fires further accelerate the loss of bio-diversity.

Insect decline may lead to flowerless world, with silent forests, a world of old dung and fallen leaves, and rotting carcasses accumulating in roadsides- as per David Wagner, entomologist at university of Connecticut.  Coral reefs, provides vital protection from coastal flooding and farm surge, facilitate breeding of fishes and contribute to US 36$ billion per year to tourism industry.  Even if global temperature stabilizes at an increased 1.5 c, coral reef could decline by 70-90%, as the ongoing estimates. 

Report suggests the need to recognize the economic value of nature, and natural capital stock movements to be counted as part of national economic health- so that economic benefits that comes at the cost of reduction in natural capital in the form of depletion in bio-stock and diversity are appropriately accounted for.

Governments, Central Banks and Corporates are examining the best ways to incorporate the financial risks of climate change and any disruptions that rapid shift of investments, policies and consumer preferences towards net-zero emission goals, in their assessments and disclosures.  

It is expected that such efforts would give enough impetus to make industries embrace circular economy features and encourage attempts to extract maximum out of natural resources through its revamp and reuse to extend its life-use than push for early replacement of half-used assets. 

If most of the climatic changes are linked to global warming, than movement to low-carbon consumption scenario becomes an attractive preposition. But transitioning towards low-carbon technologies would mean stranding assets, reduced investment returns, increased stress on pension funds stranded with investments in extractive industries, job losses, and shift in relative importance of minerals like iron and cobalt with technological innovation focus into areas like high-storage batteries and low-carbon alternatives to iron, glass and cement. 

Transition pains to low-carbon economy needs to be managed and spread over a protracted period, and we do not have much time, unless we start in right earnest, under comprehensive framework that allows for adjustments for the genuinely disadvantaged stakeholders.

In terms of Technological Risks, report brings out the concerns and issues coming out of increased fragmentation and incompatibility between cyber security regulations, framework and technology standards, which leads to higher transaction costs, greater cyber risks and sub-optimal investments in infrastructure and R&D. 

Ecological footprint of mass data generated for and by AI, for example, is considerable:  Training a single AI model can emit as much carbon as five cars in their lifetimes, MIS Technology Review, June 2019.  Quantum Computing can reduce the effectiveness of existing data security and critical infrastructure systems including military network, email and power grids, as it allows for higher capabilities and speed in solving mathematical problems which form the basis of mots encryption software today.

There is need for comprehensive, inclusive and agile global governance architecture to address the dynamic and intertwined security issues linked to 4^th Industrial revolution.     

The Economic risks highlighted in the report including rising trade tensions (decreasing trade volumes), lower investments (reduced levels of FDI inflows), weak confidence and high debt (both public and private), which could result in prolonged slowdown of the world.  In particular, US and China decoupling (and disentangling their economies and trade ) with each looking to design its own supply chain, 5G networks and investment institutions may also force other countries to decide which economic system to be part of or create redundancies to be part of both the paradigms.

Report, also recognizes the emergence of Narrower issue-specific, ad-hoc “coalitions of the willing” such as Franco-German Alliance for multilateralism, African Continental free-trade agreement, Quad, as poor substitute for truly global broad based multilateral institutions, whose effective in tackling truly global concerns is waning.

While the report has classified risks across five categories, each one of these risks when materialized can trigger other risks or acerbate their impact.   

Some of these risks would need action now for them to avoid their reaching tipping point of no-return.  Climate Action Failure could be one such risk!