PwCs CEO Survey

13th Annual Global CEO Survey Setting a smarter course for growthMain report

ResultSmarter growth

RethinkVolatility

Reshape Strategy

pwc.com/ceosurvey

Foreword

The effects of the downturn were far-reaching. Many business leaders contend they should have anticipated the impact and prepared sooner – allowing them more time to consider various strategic options. As we see in the survey, CEOs continue to work to strengthen their organisations while seeking opportunities emerging from structural shifts in their industries, economies and regulatory environments. They recognise that the decisions they make today, dealing with issues like cash management and cost pressures, will have a lasting impact on their companies’ competitive position. The ability to understand and respond to the structural shifts underway, and to improve risk management capabilities, will be fundamental considerations as CEOs plan their course for growth.

I want to thank the 1,198 company leaders and government officials from over 50 countries who shared their thinking on these difficult issues. The demands on their time are many and we are certainly grateful for their involvement. I am particularly appreciative of the 27 CEOs and 5 senior government representatives who sat down with us for more extensive conversations and provided additional context to our findings.

The tremendous success of the PwC Global CEO Survey – now in its 13th year – is directly attributable to the enthusiastic participation of leaders around the world. We at PricewaterhouseCoopers are very proud of that ongoing commitment.

Dennis M. Nally Chairman PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited January 2010

In the 13th Annual Global CEO Survey we hear how businesses leaders responded to the challenges brought about by the recession, the concerns they are facing today and, reflecting on often difficult ‘lessons learned’, their strategies for positioning their companies for the long-term.

PricewaterhouseCoopers 1

Contents

Introduction: Heading towards a growth agenda 2

Section 1 Rethink: From crisis to cautious optimism 7

Employment turning the corner 12

The thorny problem of global policy coordination 14

Section 2 Reshape: The post-crisis environment 17

The regulation paradox: Seeds of a more effective engagement 24

Government ownership: A strategic game-changer 26

Section 3 Result: Adapting to compete 29

Access to capital is a looming problem 38

Post-crisis models emerge 40

Final thoughts: Lessons learned and applied to 2010 43

Research methodology and key contacts 45

Further reading 46

Acknowledgements 48

Supplements

In-depth CEO story Visual story

2 13th Annual Global CEO Survey – Main report

pwc.com/ceosurveypwc.com/ceosurvey

The past 18 months could serve as the defining period for many CEOs. The recession in developed nations was the worst many had ever experienced, marked not only by the loss of liquidity and the contraction in demand but equally, by the speed with which conditions changed. The resulting rupture to business planning and operations came through clearly in our survey of 1,198 business leaders from around the world for the PricewaterhouseCoopers 13th Annual Global CEO Survey.

With uncertainty on future revenue, business leaders had no option but to act on what they could control. Close to 90% of companies cut costs over the past 12 months. Cash preservation was paramount as assets were divested and jobs cut. The effects of these measures are now being felt in high unemployment in developed nations and in volatile currency and capital market conditions in developed and emerging economies alike.

Most CEOs recognise the situation could have been worse. While business thinking is slowly getting back onto an even keel, there are lasting impacts that may colour future actions. Business leaders are emerging with a healthy respect for risk, volatility and flexibility and a different view of the growth imperative.

‘The big learning point we are all looking for is one that has to do with organisational agility’, said Dr. Paul Reynolds, CEO of Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited. ‘In response to the economic crisis, most businesses took action appropriate to a more difficult trading environment. But the real trick is how to get the balance right between hunkering down through tough times and investing in a way that will prepare you to make the most of opportunities that begin to materialise, post-recession. That’s the big lesson – getting the balance right and being sufficiently agile to take advantage of chances for growth and expansion.’

The wreckage of 2009 makes clear the implications of getting the short-term and long-term balance right. We believe measures over the past year to adjust costs, realign capital structures and reinvigorate risk practices throughout organisations as the basis for growth herald a new management agenda.

Introduction: Heading towards a growth agenda

I have emphasised repeatedly that Air China benefited from the rapid growth and quantum leaps in development of the past five years. Since 2008, I have changed my tune somewhat; prudent operation and sustainable development are the most important factors for the development of an excellent enterprise. This is a shift from our previous view on accelerating the pace of development.

Kong Dong Chairman, Air China Ltd, China

How did we look at this situation? First we were afraid, scared in many ways, since we were all exposed to a situation we did not fully understand and could not gauge; pessimism went from 0 to 10. It made us think about our businesses, our boards, our teams – this was an emergency situation and we were forced to make some important decisions. As I see it now, I’m neither more optimistic nor more pessimistic than before, my perception has remained the same since the beginning of the year. We have to handle things carefully, delicately…and we have to visualise a recovery soon.

Carlos Fernandez gonzalezChairman and CEo, grupo Modelo, Mexico

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Key Findings

Organisations are limbering upA sizeable majority of CEOs are planning to take out more costs. Companies in the US, Europe and the UK led in cost-cutting over the past 12 months, and they remain more focused on cost cuts in the short-term. Now the momentum is shifting to companies based in Asia: 93% of CEos in China and India and 90% in Korea plan cost efficiencies over the next three years compared with the global average of 78%.

CEOs are striving to keep debt low and liquidity ample, in part because of uncertainty over the capacity of banks to lend when the time for growth comes. Thus, 83% of CEOs expect internally generated cash flow to finance growth, seven percentage points higher than last year. A majority plan to change capital structures as a result of the crisis. ‘We did a lot of work on our balance sheet for the first six months [of 2009]’, said Dean A. Scarborough, President and CEO of US office supplies maker Avery Dennison Corporation. ‘We’re focusing on de-leveraging. We converted some convertible debt to equity earlier this year, and we cut our dividend in July. We’re well-positioned to survive even another downturn. I wouldn’t say we have a fortress balance sheet, but the walls are higher and thicker than they were a year ago.’

There has been a dramatic cull in headcount over the past 12 months. However, while 25% of CEOs are planning more job cuts this year, 39% plan to increase headcount. One area where resources continue to flow is leadership and talent development. Business leaders are aware they will need the right skills in the right places when recovery sets in. ‘What you do in this environment is add to your talent base and reposition your talent to be more suited for the challenges that are ahead,’ Michael I. Roth, Chairman and CEO of US-based advertiser Interpublic Group, told us. ‘Even though we’ve had a nine to 10 percent reduction in terms of staffing, we’ve also had increases to invest in those markets and resources that are necessary to be competitive.’

Global growth contagion, starting in emerging markets This year, 31% of CEOs are ‘very confident’ in achieving revenue growth over the next 12 months, a significant increase from last year (see figure 0.1). Their outlooks partly reflect unfolding macro-economic conditions yet they are also more confident in their companies’ ability to generate revenue than they are in recoveries in either their industries or their economies.

CEOs based in Latin America and Asia are 11 percentage points more likely to be confident about their near-term revenue growth than those in North America and 20 percentage points more confident than their Western European peers. ‘Companies in India may not be as strong today as they were two years ago, but they have emerged out of this downturn in a far better position than companies in the developed world. In terms of resources both human and financial, we are better off vis-à-vis our brethren in the developed world’, said Sunil Duggal, CEO of consumer goods group Dabur India Limited.

0.1

CEO confidence is on the mend

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% S

tatin

g ve

ry c

onfid

ent

20102009200820072005 200620042003

12-month revenuegrowth prospects

3-year prospects

Q: How would you assess your level of confidence in prospects for the revenue growth of your company over the next 12 months?

Q: How would you assess your level of confidence in prospects for the revenue growth of your company over the next 3 years? Base: All respondents (2010=1,198; 2009=1,124; 2008=1,150; 2007=1,084, 2005=1,324, 2004=1,386, 2003=989)

Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers 13th Annual Global CEO Survey 2010

Note: 2006 confidence question was not asked.

3


pwc.com/ceosurvey

There is a strong indication the recession and subsequent recovery may have accelerated trends favouring growth in some emerging markets, particularly as growth returns to emerging markets earlier. ‘Production but also the consumption of products is shifting to Asia and South America. It would have taken longer without this event, but now it will happen more quickly’, said Mikael Mäkinen, President and CEO of Finnish transport services group Cargotec.

Wary of aftershocksIt is natural after a crisis for a heightened state of wariness to set in, at least temporarily: CEOs are more concerned on a broad range of threats to growth this year. They are actively addressing risk assessment and management as a result.

Responses this year signal that risk is becoming a permanent element of the strategic planning process. More CEOs intend to change their risk management process than any other element of their strategy, organisation or business model. And more boards are increasing their engagement with assessing strategic risk than any other item on the boardroom agenda.

Regulation and its discontentsUnprecedented global measures to stabilise the financial system are drawing qualified praise from business leaders. A majority now think businesses and governments can successfully collaborate to mitigate systemic risk.

But government rescue is one thing; regulatory reform is quite another. Thus, while a protracted global recession remains the biggest worry of CEOs, it is closely followed by over-regulation. More CEOs are ‘extremely concerned’ about over-regulation than any other threat to growth. Concerns over protectionist tendencies are also up ten percentage points on last year’s survey (see figure 0.2).

The concerns are present across industries and borders. ‘For the first time in history, we’ve experienced a financial pandemic and need to determine what sorts of firewalls are required,’ Alfredo Sáenz, Second Vicechairman and CEO, Banco Santander told us. ‘But even minor firewalls will necessarily restrict the way financial institutions deploy their resources globally. The point is that protections against systemic risk will also restrict the globalisation of financial flows.’

Our survey this year looks at how CEOs responded to the crisis and what they are doing to position their companies for recoveries. It also reveals where CEOs best believe regulation can become more effective and what they consider the lasting legacies of the global recession.

This crisis brought up another insight about business. It drove us away from the fact that when we do business with other individuals or companies, the existence of tension, negotiation and conflict is natural. But when you live in a world in which secured Swiss derivatives are swapped, and a safe return is sought in paper, then there is no tension but there is also no care for the other individual. That is why, if you look at this financial collapse in a certain way, it is also a blessing, in particular because it breaks up the world of reckless revenue-seeking to leave behind only that which is basic and essential. It is obviously so much easier to build up a structure of investment papers and derivatives, and it takes less time. However, in that scheme the human being is not considered. The basic principle behind money is that it has to do with doing something with another to mutual benefit. Dealing with another is always difficult but it is a natural process.

Eduardo ElsztainPresident, IRSA group, Argentina


0.2

CEOs’ concerns have broadened beyond the economic crisis

0%2010

2009

Protracted global recession*

Over regulation

Decline in concernfrom 2009 – 2010



Lack of stability in capital markets*

Protectionist tendencies of national governments

Inflation

Low-cost competition

Energy costs

Availability of key skills

Climate change

Scarcity of natural resources (e.g. raw materials, water, energy)

Pandemics and other health crises

Security of the supply chain

Inadequacy of basic infrastructure (e.g. electricity, water, transport)

Terrorism

* ‘Protracted global recession’ and ‘Lack of stability in capital markets’ were previously ‘Downturn in major economies’ and ‘disruption of capital markets’, respectively.

Not concerned at all Not very concerned Somewhat concerned Extremely concerned


3 421219 4329 23426

31 18371327 273312

7 3020 4232 16439

33 9302730 173220

39 12371338 112921

37 17311531 233114

30 17331929 193517

37 13331634 35 1615

34 7194032 122530

31 9213832 122331

31 12 65038 26 926

40 26 72640 25 1024

36 18 73935 22 1131

32 14 74735 21 1033

Q: How concerned are you about the following potential threats to your business growth prospects? Base: All respondents (2010=1,198; 2009=1,124)


Rethink

pwc.com/ceosurvey

7PricewaterhouseCoopers

Section 1

Rethink: From crisis to cautious optimism

Confident in companies, tentative on recoveriesCEOs are emerging from deeper cost-cutting than they expected last year. In last year’s survey, conducted as the financial crisis unfolded late in 2008, 26% of CEOs told us they expected headcount reductions over the next 12 months. A year later, close to half of respondents reported they cut jobs and at least 80% of CEOs in each region initiated cost reductions. In North America and Western Europe, close to a quarter of companies divested a business or exited a significant market. It is clear that few considered simply riding out the recession a viable response. ‘The crisis took us to a new place. It was a reset for our business’, said Angela F. Braly, President and CEO of US health insurer WellPoint Inc.

They are now guardedly confident about generating revenue growth in the near term and they are decidedly more confident over a three-year time horizon. Indeed, over that time period, CEOs are about as confident of their revenue prospects as they have ever been in our survey. Of course, this may partly be a reflection of the depths to which demand had sunk.

Higher confidence on growth holds true regardless of where CEOs are based, although geography is strongly correlated with the relative strength of confidence levels. CEOs based in countries where the crisis had the least impact on GDP and where recoveries were already underway by the third quarter of 2009 are naturally the most confident. Nonetheless, confidence increased markedly among CEOs in North America and in Latin America, two regions where most CEOs (except those in Brazil) are expecting a later recovery.

‘We know there’s a lot of pent-up demand for our products from the SME [small- and medium-size enterprise] base and, indeed new customers,’ said Paul Walker, Chief Executive of UK business software maker The Sage Group plc. ‘When confidence returns to the SME community, when the economies pick up, we’ll see software growth come back into the sector. So, we remain very confident.’

The consistently higher confidence suggests CEOs believe companies are strategically positioned to capture competitive gains in their markets ahead of a broad-based improvement in demand. This may be a different future than they expected only two years ago, but their growth strategies appear to bear this out: A clear majority of CEOs are focused on their existing markets and fewer believe new geographical markets or new product development offer better potential for business growth.

There’s been a lot of talk about the new normal. But I think you have to ask the question ‘What was normal before?’ I subscribe to the theory that the economic activity we saw in 2007 and 2008 was overly buoyant – and that drove overly buoyant consumption. The pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction. From a debt-pricing and risk-pricing perspective, I don’t think we will or should go back to where we were in 2007 and 2008. At the same time, I suspect that to some extent, the pendulum has overcorrected. But I don’t think we’re going to go back to the conditions that we saw in 2007 and 2008.

Ken MacKenzieManaging Director and CEo, Amcor, Australia

CEOs are still addressing cost-cutting while they set their companies for take-off in recovery.


pwc.com/ceosurvey

This may further signal a period of heightened competition as companies aim to increase sales at a time of uneven or moderate economic growth. For example, in North America 80% of CEOs are somewhat or very confident of growth over the next 12 months, despite only 67% believing the economy will have recovered by the end of 2010. The same pattern emerges for CEOs in Western Europe, the most pessimistic in our survey (see figure 1.1). The trend is most striking among CEOs in Latin America, the most confident in our survey: 91% have some measure of confidence on revenue growth in the near term, but only 66% anticipate national economic recoveries during that time frame.

1.1

CEOs are confident, despite expectations that recovery will not begin until at least the second half of 2010

0

20

40

60

80

100

% E

cono

mic

rec

over

y ex

pec

ted

LatinAmerica

AfricaMiddleEast

AsiaPacific

NorthAmerica

CEEWesternEurope

5 313

2718 13 16

18 18

21

26

21 30 22

36 35

33

24

2930

28

37 38

29 15

2918 31

In 2011

In the second half of 2010

In the first half of 2010

Already recovered

‘Very’ or ‘somewhat confident’ in 12-month revenue growth prospects

Q: When do you expect recovery to set in for your nation’s economy?

Q: How would you assess your level of confidence in prospects for the revenue growth of your company over the next 12 months? Base: 28-442


We will definitely become a more focused organisation as a result of the crisis. Our service operations have gotten sharper, for example. And the crisis also prompted us to sell off some peripheral parts of our business, and that has made us a leaner organisation. So I do think we’re stronger as a result of facing these challenges and preparing ourselves for whatever might happen in the economy. Our people figured out how to achieve higher productivity as a result of some of the challenges they faced and they’re not going to go back to their prior behaviour. They’re going to take advantage of what they’ve learned and carry it forward. So the crisis took us to a new place – it was a reset for our business.

Angela F. BralyPresident and CEo, WellPoint Inc., US

For us, the key to wise foreign investment is good risk management practices. Risk management is now the primary task of state-owned enterprises.

SHEn HetingExecutive Director, President, Metallurgical Corporation of China Ltd, China


When it comes to confidence, size mattersThe highest levels of confidence emerge from CEOs of the largest firms, which we define as revenues of over $10 billion a year. Over the longer term, nearly all large-company CEOs are somewhat or very confident in revenue prospects. They are more likely to be very confident as a group than all CEOs, by 13 percentage points.

CEOs from the largest companies also acted more dramatically during the crisis and they appear to be more actively positioning their portfolios for growth. More undertook cost-cutting measures than CEOs from smaller companies; slightly more are expecting further cost cuts in the near term. They were far more likely to have completed an acquisition or entered a strategic alliance over the past year and to be planning deals and alliances in the coming year.

In emerging economies, optimism comes with uneaseA distinctive split emerged between CEOs based in the G8 developed economies and those based in the other members of the G20, including faster growing China and India. CEOs in the developed economies were far more cautious on near-term revenue prospects, with 23% ‘very confident’ versus 42% of CEOs in newer member G20 nations (see figure 1.2).

1.2

CEOs from G8 nations are less confident and expect a later recovery

0

20

40

60

80

100

% E

cono

mic

rec

over

y ex

pec

ted

Non-G20 Non-G8 membersof G20

G8

167

2020

31

32

2832

30

29

24

14

In 2011



In 2011

Already recovered or before the end of 2009

‘Very confident’ of 12-month revenue growth prospects

Q: How would you assess your level of confidence in prospects for the revenue growth of your company over the next 12 months?

Q: When do you expect recovery to set in for your nation’s economy? Base: All respondents (249-453) n.B. Recovery is defined as stable and steady economic growth. Don’t known/refused not included.


Scaling back our capacity expansion programme, scaling back working capital from inventories, managing the demands for increased credit from distressed distributors – it’s all been pretty demanding. In the event, however, we’ve been able to take some costs out of our system. All in all, we’ve come through pretty well. The real question is: Where is the economy headed? Is it bouncing back? I don’t really see that it is.

graham MackayChief Executive, SABMiller plc, UK

Research efforts and new product development will increasingly be focused on emerging countries. We have made the ability to develop products on the ground central to our marketing organisation. Why restrict innovation to just 20% of the market (i.e. developed countries)?

Bruno LafontChairman and Chief Executive Director, LAFARgE group, France


pwc.com/ceosurvey

CEOs also believe recovery for G8 nations is likely to occur much later than in the new G20 countries and non-G20 countries. This reflects economic reality: In China’s case, for one, output accelerated over the course of 2009; the country is likely to exceed the government’s target of 8% for 2009, the IMF estimates. To compare, the output of developed economies is forecast to decline 3.4% in 2009.1

Yet, CEOs from the newer member G20 economies are also the most aware of threats to business growth prospects. They are more concerned about over-regulation, low-cost competition, currency volatility and energy costs.

We examined just how broadly and deeply different CEOs considered the risks present in the business environment by constructing an ‘Anxiety Index’, which measures their relative levels of concern over 20 potential threats to business growth prospects.2 Chief executives in Western Europe scored the lowest on our Anxiety Index, at 33.47 (out of a theoretical range of 0 to 100), against a global average of 38.89 (see figure 1.3). CEOs in Japan are a very notable exception among the G8. They have the highest Anxiety Index score of CEOs in all major countries at 57.54. Younger companies – those that have been in business fewer than five years – also tended to have a higher Anxiety Index scores.

1.3

CEOs from Western Europe show the lowest level of concern in the ‘Anxiety Index’

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Anx

iety

Ind

ex

LatinAmerica

AfricaMiddleEast

AsiaPacific

NorthAmerica

CEEWesternEurope

36.90

33.47

44.73 46.44

34.38 34.12

52.39

Global index:38.89

Q: How concerned are you about the following potential threats to your business growth prospects related to or emerging from the current economic crisis and other threats? Base: All respondents (1,198)


Note: We analysed concerns by creating an index score out of 100 based on responses to 20 potential threats to growth: ‘Extremely concerned’ received a score of 100; ‘Somewhat concerned’ received a score of 50; ‘Not very concerned’ received a score of 25; and ‘Not concerned at all’ received a score of 0.

1 International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook (October 2009). 2 The Anxiety Index scores CEO concern levels on 20 threats to business growth prospects, thus allowing us to compare different groupings. We analysed concerns by creating an

index score out of 100: “Extremely concerned” received a score of 100; “Somewhat concerned” received a score of 50; “Not very concerned” received a score of 25; and “Not concerned at all” received a score of 0. This resulted in a global anxiety index of 38.89 which suggests that overall respondents are “somewhat concerned” about potential threats.

When we look at the developing world, such as the Middle East and Southeast Asian economies, for us it is not China or India but countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines that have grown and are continuing to grow. Even through the crisis they have grown at 5% or 6%.

Phil CoxCEo, International Power plc, UK

Basically, our response to the crisis has focused on the upgrade of procedures.

Pablo IslaDeputy Chairman and CEo, Inditex, Spain


3 International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook (October 2009).

These responses suggest CEOs based in developed economies are more comfortable with their current positioning. For example, compared with CEOs in other regions, fewer CEOs in Western Europe and in North America are planning new cost-cutting initiatives or making changes to their long-term leadership development programmes and capital investment plans. The greater level of both confidence and concern for CEOs of companies based in developing nations suggests that they have more room to climb and perhaps at the same time, fewer safeguards to check a fall.

One explanation for the relatively higher levels of concern in emerging economies in Asia Pacific, Latin America and Africa is that some of these CEOs are encountering stresses that may engulf more companies as they shift from a focus on cost-driven restructuring measures to a focus on growth.

Emerging economies also bore the brunt of the drop-off in global capital flows in 2009, triggering currency swings and higher financing costs in some regions. Export-oriented emerging markets faced a sharp decline in overseas demand. World trade was projected by the IMF to fall 11.9% in 2009.3

Thus CEOs in Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, and Asia are more likely to be concerned about threats centred on globalisation, including exchange rate volatility, protectionism and macro-economic imbalances. The higher anxiety levels outside North America and Europe may also reflect not only different phases of the business cycle, but also differing levels in economic development.

The global economy is now starting a process of recovery, but the greatest challenge will be the way in which this mega-issuance of money and debt will be absorbed, and it is here where I see a very bright warning light, because I look at the situation with Argentine eyes, and we are very well aware of the cost of resolving a crisis by means of the printing of money.

Eduardo ElsztainPresident, IRSA group, Argentina

The flow of foreign investment has been substantial and has been targeted at Brazil as one of the best world market options. It can’t be denied that our universe has become very jittery. These funds have not necessarily come to stay. Investors are very agile at seeking the best markets at any specific time, so there could be a migration of these funds as the markets recover. For now, though, the financial world is still in a crisis recovery mode. Although things have become much better, that doesn’t mean it is over.

Claudio Eugênio Stiller galeazziCEo, Pão de Açúcar group, Brazil


pwc.com/ceosurvey

As a sustainable, credible economic recovery is unlikely without a reversal in unemployment rates, headcount expansion plans in the private sector are a key indicator. Our survey shows that while many companies are still downsizing, more will be adding to their workforces (39%) than will be cutting (25%) over the next 12 months (see figure 1.4).

Certainly one of the more difficult actions in the past year was cutting jobs. Close to half of companies in the survey decreased the size of their workforces. Companies based in North America and in Western Europe led, with 69% of US companies and 63% of UK companies decreasing headcount. Utilities proved the most stable, with 21% of companies reporting cuts. Cuts were most prevalent in industrial manufacturing (68%) and auto (80%) companies and in the media/entertainment sector (71%). The latter two sectors are among the least likely to be adding jobs in the coming year (see figures 1.5 and 1.6).

Highly skilled still globally in demandSpecialists remain in demand, and many parts of the world are still struggling to attract and keep talent. Over the long term, businesses may live to regret the drastic headcount reduction they have made during the downturn.

Tigran Nersisyan, President of Russian food and beverage maker Borodino Group, said he spends a significant amount of his time on ‘HR issues’ locally and abroad. ‘We did our best to retain our specialists, who are always in demand. To be honest, just as before the crisis, we still face a shortage of highly trained workers, such as IT specialists, software developers, and experienced marketing staff. Specialists of all kinds are in great demand. In manufacturing the situation is worse still because we are implementing new generation technologies that require highly qualified employees’, he said. ‘We still face major HR issues. I spend about 40 percent of my time on HR policy issues both locally and overseas. It’s impossible to reduce costs or material consumption without new technologies and these new technologies require highly qualified employees who are hard to come by.’

1.4

More CEOs will be adding jobs than cutting them in the coming year

Decrease(77% of those who expect to decrease headcount in next 12 months had already made cuts)

Past 12 months Next 12 months

0%

Stay the same

Increase byless then 5%

Increase by 5-8%

Increase by more than 8%

48

25

22

34

13

20

7

10

9

9

Q: What happened to headcount in your organisation globally over the past 12 months?

Q: What do you expect to happen to headcount in your organisation globally over the next 12 months? Base: All respondents (1,198)


1.5

Where are jobs being added?

0%

Spain 6 3

Germany 14 3 10

Italy 18 11

France 14 5 11

Netherlands 20 7 7

Japan 29 8

Mexico 23 10 3

Russia 17 13 7

Global 20 10 9

US 25 7 7

UK 14 9 19

Australia 30 7 10

Canada 18 15 15

Korea 30 17 3

China & Hong Kong 23 17 13

India 23 13 23

Increase by more than 8%Increase by 5-8%Increase by less than 5%

Brazil 27 7 27

Q: What do you expect to happen to headcount in your organisation globally over the next 12 months? Base: All respondents (30-1,198)


Employment turning the corner


With many companies cutting their graduate and trainee intakes and CEOs becoming increasingly critical of government’s ability to provide a skilled workforce, there is emerging evidence of a growing ‘talent gap’ in a number of regions – where demand for key skills over the coming decade will exceed the available supply. The spectre of demographic shifts and ageing populations may have temporarily slipped from some CEOs’ minds, but it could return to haunt them in future.

African CEOs are the most concerned, but they’ve taken steps to respond. ‘One aspect in which the financial crisis has worked in our favour is that it has created a wider pool

of available talent. In the last two years, we have managed to attract very significant talent from both Europe and North America. These are highly experienced people who bring with them enormous knowledge. And since many of them experienced the banking crisis firsthand, they also understand how to mitigate such events. That has been a major benefit to Equity’, said Dr. James Mwangi, Managing Director and CEO of Equity Bank in Kenya.

Time for an overhaul of HR A majority of CEOs (79%) intend to increase their focus and investment on how they manage people through change, which includes redefining employees’ roles in the organisation. They feel they need to change their strategies for managing talent. The scale of these intended changes suggests that, for whatever reason, existing practices did not support the business when the crisis hit. We believe there are three major human capital failures that were brought to the surface as a result of the downturn:

Existing reward models are broken. Whether as a result of regulatory or public pressures, they are not seen as fit for purpose in many parts of the world. This is not just confined to financial services; we are seeing criticism of reward models across sectors.

CEos were unable to move talent around quickly when the crisis hit. This led to large-scale layoffs to save cash at one extreme, but also left crucial talent gaps at the other. Organisations will have to find more agile ways of deploying and reallocating talent to where it is most needed. Those organisations that underwent drastic headcount reduction now face the costly exercise of rehiring and retraining as demand improves and we head into the upturn.

Employees lack the key skills needed to operate and compete in the new emerging environment. Notable skill gaps include greater risk awareness, market adaptability, change management capability and responding to new customer demands. CEOs in many parts of the world also believe that governments have largely failed to supply a workforce with the right skills. This is likely why 41% of CEOs expect to increase their focus on training and development.

1.6

Who is adding jobs?

Energy 15 15 6

Consumer goods 23 7 8

Pharmaceuticals/life science 25 10 3

Chemicals 24 15

Global 20 910

Retail & distributive wholesale 21 14 5

Insurance 21 4 15

Industrial manufacturing 19 9 13

Engineering & construction 23 15 4

Technology 15 10 17

Business & professionalservices 14 10 21

Banking & capital markets 20 16 12

Transportation & logistics 21 10 7

Utilities 21 5 7

Automotive 22 44

Entertainment & media 23 33

Metals 3 1212

0%

Increase by more than 8%Increase by 5-8%Increase by less than 5%

Q: What do you expect to happen to headcount in your organisation globally over the next 12 months? Base: All respondents (33-1,198)



pwc.com/ceosurvey

CEOs have long sought more cooperation among governments to harmonise tax and address other overlapping regulatory burdens that stem from running an international business operation. In this survey – conducted before global climate talks in Copenhagen concluded without a binding agreement on emissions reductions – expectations were high that regulatory coordination would successfully mitigate systemic risks and harmonise new regulations.

CEOs were less certain that the path to smarter regulation involves governments working more closely or in empowering multilateral organisations to act as global regulators (see figure 1.7). It begs the question: Where will effective supranational cooperation on economic and financial policies take place? It is of increasing importance to business leaders. Sixty-five percent said they fear governments will become more protectionist. These concerns are rising even as trade conditions were little affected over the past year. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) in its annual report released in November 2009, while noting slippage on trade policy in most G20 countries, said ‘the world economy is about as open for trade today as it was before the crisis started.’

Most CEOs expect that the G20 group, representing 85% of the global economy, will become the dominant political and economic power. The G20 succeeded the G7 or G8 as the forum for international economic coordination in response to the financial crisis and in recognition of the growing relevance of emerging markets in the world’s economy.

Yet the G20 forum poses challenges for global policy coordination. In recent years, global negotiations have become more difficult as more parties, often with differing perspectives and constituencies, come to the table, as witnessed by the Copenhagen climate negotiations and earlier by the WTO’s Doha trade talk stalemate. Ian Bremmer, President of the US-based Eurasia Group consultancy, anticipates less policy coordination as the G20 replaces the G8: ‘The G20 is not just a bigger coordination problem; it’s not just herding more cats, though that would be more difficult. The G20 is herding cats along with animals that don’t like cats.’

Among government officials, we also found support for greater convergence as well as an acknowledgement of the challenges to get there. ‘It’s probably not realistic to think that regulatory frameworks are going to be identical across countries. It’s probably not productive to even try to achieve that’, said Robert Bhatia, Deputy Minister of Alberta Seniors and Community Supports in Canada. ‘But convergence – meaning moving closer together while allowing for somewhat differing approaches – yes, I think that is a positive. That has to help in terms of facilitating international transactions and trade.’

The thorny problem of global policy coordination

It’s a bit too many Gs [G8, G20]. There is some inflation of such institutions here. Their function is not absolutely clear, whether or not they for example should be a substitute for international institutions that don’t work. It is definitely necessary to include economically strong states into these organisations, even when they do not have a status of market economies, such as China, for example, and non-members of OECD.

Martin TIapa Deputy Minister, Ministry of Trade & Industry, Czech Republic


1.7

Global risks will be contained – but not by multi-laterals

3265

60 38

55 42

39 57

78 19

2868

0%

Government and business efforts will be unableto mitigate key global risks like climate change,

terrorism and financial crises

Regulatory insight will remain primarily theremit of each nation’s own regulators despite

increased co-operation

Governments will become more protectionist

The pressure on natural resources willcontinue to increase

The G20 will be the new dominant economic andpolitical power in the world

Within nations, the gap between rich and poorpeople will increase

Government and business efforts will mitigate key global risks like climate change, terrorism and financial crises

Multi-lateral organisations will increasingly provide oversight on regulatory issues such as in financial services

The world will be more open to free international trade

Efficiency of resource usage will improve

The G8 nations will remain the dominant economic, and political powers in the world

Within nations, the gap between rich and poor people will decrease

Q: Which of the following scenarios do you feel is more likely to occur in the future (more than 3 years)? Base: All respondents (1,198) Respondents chose a scenario from each pair, or the option ‘Don’t know/Refused’.


Of course, global forums such as the WTO and the G20 are not the only outlet for national cooperation on economic policy. Even as the WTO’s talks have broken down, for example, regional trade agreements have risen sharply, accompanying a broader trend of rising intra-regional trade and capital flows before the financial crisis. CEOs expect the trend to continue despite the downturn. ‘Right now I see a lot more trade agreements happening between countries that don’t include the United States’, said Dean A. Scarborough of Avery Dennison Corporation.

Regional trade agreements are largely thought to impede global trade in the long-term. And some issues cannot truly be addressed with regional solutions; problems such as climate change or financial system stability would leak over borders and undercut the desired outcomes of the regulatory cooperation. Yet regional agreements could represent stepping stones towards global coordination and begin the process of harmonisation among neighbouring nations that are likely to have some interests in common.

Reshape

pwc.com/ceosurvey


Section 2

Reshape: The post-crisis environment

Worst fears fail to materialise on regulations… yetRegulation is a perennial concern for CEOs. This year, how business leaders view regulatory issues has to be understood through the lens of ‘what might have been’ at the start of 2009, when the uncertainty which hung over the financial system and by extension, the global economy, was so great. At that time, drastic measures to contain the crisis and preserve national economies were a realistic prospect. Massive bailouts ensued and with them, expectations of radical regulation to prevent another crisis.

The alarmist scenarios of trade barriers and regulatory rewrites largely failed to materialise. Yet there remains a sense that more regulatory change is inevitable. CEOs see little encouraging news on compliance costs. Regulatory burdens on corporations were not addressed during the downturn. In fact, in this year’s survey, more CEOs cited a lack of progress on cutting red tape than a year ago, 67% to 57%. Only 2% of CEOs based in the US said the government has reduced regulations (see figure 2.1). Some governments are listening, at least when it comes to taxes. Our annual measure of the comparative ease of paying taxes in 183 countries found that 45 economies had reduced the tax burden on SMEs, or made it easier for them to pay taxes, in the year through 1 June 2009.4 Yet, few CEOs believe that trend will continue.

2.1

Only 15% of CEOs worldwide believe their government has reduced the regulatory burden

0%

Brazil

Korea

China & Hong Kong

Japan

Italy

Global

Spain

Mexico

Russia

Canada

India

Germany

France

Australia

Netherlands

UK

US

0

2

3

7

7

11

13

30

13

13

13

13

15

37

15

16

27

Q: Thinking about the role of government in the country in which you operate, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? % who ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ with the statement, ‘The government has reduced the regulatory burden on corporations’. Base: All respondents (30-1,198)


Note: Respondents who ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’.

4 ‘Paying Taxes 2010: The Global Picture’, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the World Bank (2009).

As the process of economic stabilisation unfolded in 2009, we sought to discover what CEOs consider the lasting legacies of the downturn.


pwc.com/ceosurvey

We believe CEOs also worry that regulatory approaches designed to deal with perceived problems in the financial sector will wend their way through the entire economy. ‘There’s a tendency by government to tar every company with the same brush’, said Graham Mackay, Chief Executive of UK brewer SABMiller plc. ‘Certain regulatory reforms useful and necessary for financial companies – new approaches to risk, remuneration, or corporate governance – would clearly be intrusive if applied indiscriminately to business as a whole.’ Other CEOs shared similar concerns about the unintended consequences of regulatory reforms.

Getting closer to consumers Some of the strategic rethinking we uncovered – aside from consideration of varying regional growth rates – is connected with what is happening to consumers. Business leaders appear as split as economists on the lasting impact of the crisis on the consumer but they are changing company strategies to adapt.

Not surprisingly, consumer goods, retailers and wholesalers, media/entertainment and technology companies are the most concerned that a permanent shift is underway (see figure 2.2). Nearly half of CEOs cite a permanent shift in consumer spending and behaviour as a threat to their business growth prospects. The concern is highest among CEOs based in North America, Asia-Pacific and Africa.

Eighty-one percent of CEOs expect to adjust their strategies in response to changing consumer behaviours. Technology and media/entertainment companies are deeply involved in reorienting their businesses to those changing purchasing habits: 46% of media/entertainment companies predict a ‘major change’ in strategy as do 44% of technology companies. Even less cyclical industries such as energy companies and utilities are making those types of changes (see figure 2.3).

2.2

Technology, entertainment, retail and consumer goods companies are likely to be concerned about permanent shifts in consumer behaviour...

0%

Utilities

Retail & distributive wholesale

Entertainment & media

Technology

Consumer goods

Transportation & logistics

Chemicals

Industrial manufacturing

Global

Automotive

Insurance

Energy

Metals

Business & professional services

Pharmaceutical/life sciences

Banking & capital markets

Engineering & construction

26

37

37

38

40

42

44

64

46

48

48

49

52

66

54

55

60

Q: How concerned are you about the following potential threats to your business growth prospects related to or emerging from the current economic crisis? % ‘extremely concerned’ or ‘somewhat concerned’ about ‘permanent shifts in consumer behaviour’. Base: All respondents (33-1,198)


We certainly don’t need more regulation in the media industry overall. In general, markets have to be free. But we’ve also seen, in other industries, what can happen when freedoms are abused or when there is too little regulation. There have to be rules, and these rules must be binding for all players in the market.

Hartmut ostrowskiChairman and CEo, Bertelsmann Ag, germany


2.3

… and they are likely to be changing their strategies in response

0%

Business & professional services69

Energy71

Utilities71

Industrial manufacturing74

Transportation & logistics75

Engineering & construction76

Pharmaceuticals/life sciences78

Retail & distributive wholesale91

Metals79

Automotive80

Global81

Chemicals83

Banking & capital markets83

Entertainment & media94

Technology85

Consumer goods89

Insurance90

Q: In the wake of the economic crisis, to what extent do you anticipate changes to any of the following areas of your company’s strategy, organisation or operating model? Base: All respondents (33-1,198)


Note: Respondents who stated ‘some change’ or ‘a major change’ to their strategy, organisation or operating model in response to changing consumer purchasing behaviours.

‘What we do see is more down-trading to discount economy brands,’ said Graham Mackay of SABMiller plc. ‘But it’s really an extension of a more fundamental dynamic. As markets mature, mainstream, standard-price beers eventually come under threat from premium brands at the top and discounters at the bottom. The middle gets eroded.’

On the other hand, household earnings are expected to rise in emerging economies, fuelling an expansion of middle classes. A slow but steady shift towards more consumption in emerging markets is an opportunity that CEOs are pursuing across segments.

Sensing opportunity in new consumer habitsConsumers are seeking more value, but ‘value’ manifests itself in a variety of ways in consumers’ eyes. The survey shows that 64% of CEOs are sensing a shift in consumers’ preferences to associate with environmentally and socially responsible businesses – consumers perceive value in a company’s reputation. And 60% of CEOs expect consumers will play a more active role in product development in their companies, another dimension of value perceived by consumers and a trend represented by open source computing and social networks. ‘After the crisis, consumers will demand a very high level of quality’, said Pablo Isla, Deputy Chairman and CEO of Spanish fashion retailer Inditex. ‘There are also new communications technologies to keep in touch with consumers, such as blogs, Facebook and so on. Inditex has two million Zara users fans on Facebook, a completely new and powerful communications tool.’

Benetton’s positioning in what we like to call ‘democratic fashion’ is helpful in facing the crisis, however; the consumer on average is spending less and more shrewdly. Spending a lot is less trendy than it has been in the past and consumers prefer to buy greater quantities of products at the same price rather than a single ‘designer’ product.

gerolamo Caccia DominioniCEo, Benetton group SPA, Italy


pwc.com/ceosurvey

2.4

Public trust is down in financial services and automotive, but much less elsewhere

0%

Banking & capital markets

Consumer goods

Technology

Pharmaceuticals/life sciences

Retail & distributive wholesale

Metals

Energy

Transportation & logistics

Engineering & construction

Entertainment & media

Global

Industrial manufacturing

Business & professional services

Automotive

Insurance

Utilities

Chemicals

Significant fall in public trust Slight fall in public trust Slight rise in public trust Significant rise in public trust

26 41335

42 4194

34 6104

17 21017

23 3123

18 4158

20 3116

19 4194

16 4216

18 393

18 6153

9 399

18 18

15 2123

11 3184

7 7142

4 1520

Q: To what extent do you believe the public’s trust in your industry has changed as a result of the economic crisis? Base: All respondents (33-1,198)


Note: Responses of ‘Public trust stayed the same’, ‘Don’t know/Refused’ excluded.


The interest in drawing in consumers at the product development stage is not limited to companies in the technology and consumer goods sector, which have long been in the forefront in collaborative product development initiatives. Financial services CEOs are more likely than their peers to involve consumers in development, perhaps as a result of regulatory initiatives on consumer financial protection in addition to the growing sophistication of online financial products.

Public trust: A concern for the financial and auto sectors Perceptions of a change in public trust in business as a result of the recession are driven by sectoral and regional differences. Globally, only 8% of CEOs believed their industries experienced a ‘significant fall’ in trust. The figure rises to over one-third of banking and capital markets CEOs (see figure 2.4).

The perspectives may come as a surprise to some in Western Europe and North America, where a wave of populist outrage prompted authorities to discourage bonuses in the financial sector, the recipient of significant public funds. An FT/Harris poll of adults in six Western countries shows the recession negatively influenced views of business leaders. On average, 67% said they held a worse opinion of leaders as a result of the downturn.5

Yet most CEOs outside of financial services believe the economic crisis has not changed public perceptions of their industries, despite the broad-based job cuts and other cost-driven measures in 2009. Most business leaders believe that problems of trust are restricted to the banks and countries that experienced the worst banking crises. ‘I agree with the view that the recent behaviour and actions of certain company managements has disillusioned the public’, said Pawan Munjal, MD and CEO of Hero Honda Motors Limited in India. ‘But just as a few rotten apples cannot ruin an entire harvest of apples, a few unethical acts cannot, and should not, tarnish the reputation of an entire industry.’

It would be surprising for CEOs to report a steep drop in public trust if they were based in countries where the downturn was muted. Accordingly, few CEOs based in China and Hong Kong feel there has been a significant decline in trust in their industry – and no CEOs in Canada or Brazil do. ‘In less developed countries, the private sector – and the multinational corporation, specifically – is viewed as a bastion of wealth, power, and influence. Consequently, we are very conscious of public opinion and go to great lengths to protect our reputation and build the trust of the local community’, said Graham Mackay of SABMiller plc. ‘Quite frankly, if there’s any clear erosion of trust, I think it’s directed towards the political establishment.’

5 FT/Harris Interactive Poll (April 2009).


pwc.com/ceosurvey

Executive compensation is a persistent and prominent focus of public distrust. Yet, the furore over soaring executive pay did not register widely. The view that companies can rebuild trust through new remuneration models appears to be held by a minority of CEOs from virtually every country. Overall, less than a third of CEOs who recognised a decline in public trust said they were changing compensation practices in response. Banks and capital markets companies are, not surprisingly, the most likely to be changing compensation practices.

In the US, 44% of CEOs who experienced a decline in trust said they were changing pay practices. They appear to stand somewhat apart from their boards on the contentious subject. A majority of US directors expect the heightened government focus on pay will impact board-level

discussions on compensation for all companies, according to a 2009 poll of 1,007 directors. In the same poll, 60% of directors conceded boards are having trouble controlling CEO compensation levels.6

In general, compensation and workforce practices are areas where CEOs would least like to see any change in regulation. They are concerned that more regulation in this area will limit their ability to attract and keep good people and, in turn, hamper their ability to recover from the effects of the downturn.

As for improving public trust in their industry, far more favour participating in industry initiatives or engaging in dialogue with regulators (see figure 2.5). Overall, the financial services companies are the most active in adopting a variety of strategies to help rebuild trust.

6 ‘What Directors Think’, PwC/Corporate Board Member Magazine (November 2009).

Globally, yes, the public’s trust in the private sector has certainly been shaken. But not so in India. Not a single bank in India went bankrupt and not a single investment house defaulted. So there is a big difference.

Sunil DuggalCEo, Dabur India Limited, India

One of the biggest lessons we have learnt is about risk management. In the past, we believed that it is the things that we ourselves do – or fail to do – that would hurt us most. But now we understand that the environment can also affect us significantly. So we now want to be in a position to shape and influence the wider banking industry. Most of the organisations that failed were brought down not because of toxic assets but because public trust was lost. So we have learnt a valuable lesson about managing the external environment, about thinking macro and acting micro. That’s made Equity Bank a stronger organisation. We are more aware now of the possible repercussions of events out of our control.

Dr. James MwangiMD and CEo, Equity Bank, Kenya


2.5

CEOs who are addressing issues of trust are split on their approaches

51

50

49

37

31

30

0%

63

64

Media relations programme and advertising

Revisions to reporting and engagementwith investor community

Participation in industry initiatives toimprove the sector's reputation

Proactive dialogue with policy-makers and regulators

A systematic approach to measuringand managing reputation

Expansion of your corporate responsibility programme

Engagement with NGOs to improvepractices that affect your reputation

Changing executive compensation practices

Q: Which, if any, of the following activities have you initiated or are you planning to initiate in your own company as a result of the decline in trust? Base: Respondents who stated there has been a slight or significant fall in public trust in their industry (304)



pwc.com/ceosurvey

A year into the crisis, businesses are at a critical juncture in their relationship with government. The broad effects of coordinated monetary and fiscal measures to stimulate growth – and the measured approach to date on regulatory reform and trade policy – have set a foundation for a closer engagement with the public sector.

At the same time, there is an increase in the negative perceptions of CEOs on the success of government intervention regarding the environment, access to natural resources, availability of skills and the regulatory burden. This reflects the ‘regulation paradox’ we encounter each year in the survey: CEOs express the desire for more government leadership and action in certain areas (e.g. climate change and tax harmonisation) while also believing government action is only positive when it helps their business.

In an effort to highlight the gaps – and find where there is promise of a more effective public and private sector engagement – we asked CEOs for their views on a smarter

approach to regulation. We also extended the research through interviews with senior decision-makers in governmental organisations across the world.7

CEOs are more willing than in the past to step up to the challenge. ‘I think there is much that can be done in partnership between business and government’, said Angela F. Braly of WellPoint Inc. They are not waiting for new regulation but increasing involvement to help shape it. Over two-thirds are prioritising cooperation with regulators. Nearly 60% believe smarter regulation will stem from working more closely together (see figure 2.6).

Businesses and regulators cannot expect to agree on everything, yet we did find areas where CEOs acknowledge common goals with more activist regulators:

CEos favour better enforcement over new regulation for financial sector stability, and for social and environmental sustainability. They believe regulators have the leeway to make use of powers they already have and thus that

7 For more from the government perspective, see ‘Government and the global CEO: Setting a smarter course for growth’, PwC Public Sector Research Centre (January 2010).

The regulation paradox: Seeds of a more effective engagement

Some countries may impose protectionist barriers but I don’t think they’ll be very significant. In addition, in Brazil’s case, the appreciation of its currency (the real) may offset possible protectionist barriers.

Claudio Eugênio Stiller galeazziCEo, Pão de Açúcar group, Brazil

The public’s disillusionment has moved beyond the banks to the private sector in general, so that governments are now talking about more regulation to stop a similar crisis from ever happening again. But hasty regulation will be bad regulation and my concern is that creativity, innovation, and enterprise will be stifled at a time when they should be encouraged

Paul S. WalshChief Executive, Diageo plc, UK


heightened enforcement would be more effective than systemic change. Only 8% and 12% called for less regulation for financial sector stability and for social and environmental sustainability, respectively.

Antipathy to regulation strengthens where regulation could harm job creation. Business leaders are more clearly opposed to new regulations in innovation, foreign investment and access to capital.

Most oppose new or more regulation on workforce practices, including compensation. Opposition is led by Brazil, where 63% seek less workforce regulation, followed by 52% in the US and 46% in Germany.

2.6

CEOs want regulatory clarity and stability, and to be included in the policy-making process

0%

Place more emphasis on fairly enforcing existing regulations

Work more closely with other nations to harmonise regulations

Ensure regulations are clear and stable

Work more closely with the private sector to maintain competitiveness 59

57

45

39

32

21

15

Focus regulation on outcomes, not process

Make the representation of emergingeconomies in global bodies more equitable

Empower multi-lateral organisations to act as global regulators

Q: In which of the following ways do you believe government could best improve the policy-setting process with regard to smarter business regulation? Base: All respondents (1,198) n.B. Respondents chose up to three of the seven possible options

Note: Responses of ‘Don’t know/refused’ excluded.

It is incumbent on us to engage as much as we possibly can with government and with the civil service. The power sector does not speak with one voice, since it is a collection of individuals, all of whom have got a slightly different agenda. I have some sympathy for government and opposition when they say, ‘What does the industry want me to do here?’ and they get seven different replies.

Phil CoxCEo, International Power plc, UK


pwc.com/ceosurvey

Rising government influence over the global business environment in 2009 was marked by the increase in state ownership and control in a whole range of companies. Our survey reflects the change: 14% of companies have government ownership or backing, up from 10% in the last year. Nearly a third of all companies said the government owns a stake in a major player in their industry.

Government’s new reach in 2009 – largely a result of the unprecedented measures to stabilise the financial system – is changing the debate on government ownership in the private sector. Nearly half of CEOs were positive towards government taking an ownership role in times of crisis, including those in North America, whose dissatisfaction with most issues involving government measures to improve business conditions is evident elsewhere in the survey (see figure 2.7). CEOs from two sectors that received considerable support from governments around the world during the crisis – automakers and banks – are among the most appreciative of government ownership to stabilise a crisis.

The relative acceptance of public ownership ends when a crisis fades away. More than two-thirds of CEOs have significant concerns about long-term state involvement in business with important implications for government policies on competition and fair markets. Even those that are experiencing government ownership have negative perceptions over long-term state ownership, although slightly less so.

While CEOs may desire a pull-back from government ownership, popular support appears to be holding in some polls. A GlobeScan/University of Maryland poll in 2009 of

We’ve learned which conditions apply to China and which do not. With regard to this crisis, China is in a relatively advantageous position and I attribute that to China’s monetary policy. But there are also conditions in China that we must pay attention to. China’s economic development relies on exports and all over the world we’re regarded as a manufacturing country. However, the raw material we use is mostly supplied domestically, and the products we produce are sold relatively cheaply. In fact, the products we sell seldom reflect a high technical content or value-added. So in my opinion, China should reduce its volume of exports, but begin to manufacture products of higher quality and higher value-added. That would contribute substantially to China’s economic development. The core issue is how much innovation is contained in your products.


I am unable to say with any certainty how a regime for controlling systemic risk will come about. I do know, however, that this issue has many unanswered questions. In the case of a cross-border institution, when a failure occurs as a result of systemic risk, who pays the bill? The treasury of one country or the other?

Alfredo SáenzSecond Vicechairman and CEo, Banco Santander, Spain

Government ownership: A strategic game-changer


2.7

Not all CEOs agree that government ownership is helpful in times of crisis

0%

88

75

63

78

56

54

65

83

69

69

78

76

54

78

83

72

62

74

69

61

70

50

51

61

34

41

54

40

Government ownership helpsto stabilise an industry

in times of crisis

Government ownership willlead to political interference

in the marketplace

North America Western Europe Asia Pacific Latin America

CEE Middle East Africa Global average

Government ownershipdistorts competition

in an industry

Government ownershipinherently creates a

conflict of interest with its regulatory function

Q: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about government ownership? Base: All respondents (28-442)


Note: Respondents who stated ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’. Please note small base for Middle East.

8 ‘Wide Dissatisfaction with Capitalism — Twenty Years after Fall of Berlin Wall’, BBC World Service, GlobeScan, University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) (November 2009).

adults in 27 countries found that a majority called for less active government ownership or control in just four of the countries.8 Indeed, given the range of experiences with public ownership in countries where the crisis was more muted – from East Asia to the Middle East and Latin America – state ownership is likely to endure for some time in one form or anther, be it state-owned enterprises, sovereign wealth funds or national oil companies.

And CEOs recognise this. They are shifting strategies to respond to other influences of the government over the economy. ‘Government spending as a percentage of GDP in almost every economy is going up. We’ll adapt to that environment. In fact, we need to look at government as more of a customer’, said Dean A. Scarborough of Avery Dennison Corporation. ‘Our strategy in the past was ’let’s just stay under the radar’, and that’s not doable anymore. We need to be an influence, certainly, so we’re going to step up our involvement in the public sector to influence the outcome in a good way.’

We should work to refine our model of regulation whereby a merits-based review becomes part of the regulatory process and acts, if you like, as a self-managing check over the scale and scope of regulation and whether or not it’s achieving its intended outcomes.

Dr. Paul ReynoldsCEo, Telecom Corporation of new Zealand Limited, new Zealand

Result

pwc.com/ceosurvey


Section 3

Result: Adapting to compete

Short-term cost focus Despite widespread restructurings last year, many businesses remain committed to further cost-cutting. In an indication of the cost pressure they continue to face, 69% of CEOs we surveyed plan cost-reduction initiatives in the next 12 months, compared with the 88% who made cuts over the past year (see figure 3.1).

3.1

Cost-cutting remains agenda item no. 1

Implemented acost-reduction initiative

Have initiated in past 12 months Plan to initiate in coming 12 months

0%

Outsourced a business process or function

Entered into a new strategicalliance or joint venture

‘Insourced’ a previouslyoutsourced business

process or function

Divested or spun-off majority interest in a business or

exited a significant market

Completed a cross-border merger or acquisition

Ended an existing strategic alliance or joint venture

88

69

35

34

35

46

23

17

20

30

18

14

17

20

Q: Which, if any, of the following restructuring activities have you initiated in the past 12 months?

Q: Which, if any, of the following restructuring activities do you plan to initiate in the coming 12 months? Base: All respondents (1,198)


Note: Responses of ‘Don’t know/Refused’ and ‘None of the above’ excluded.

Last year’s survey found CEOs taking action to survive swift drops in demand without cutting deeply into investments vital to long-term competitiveness. Conditions are improved but the cost pressure remains.

Business leaders are also bracing for continued volatility. ‘Under the current situation, demand changes every day, and enterprises need to adapt rapidly. In fact, wide fluctuations in market conditions have become very normal and we must be ready to respond to a whole range of possible conditions: low market prices, strong demand, or no demand’, Huang Tianwen, President of China-based Sinosteel Corporation, told us.

Price fluctuations are impacting recovery scenarios for some. ‘What makes this recovery atypical is the degree of volatility in commodity pricing. We are seeing demand come back. But demand might not fully recover because of the degree of volatility that still exists’, said Andrew Ferrier, CEO of New Zealand dairy exporter Fonterra Co-operative Group.

In this environment, CEOs are less likely to explore new markets. And an unrelenting focus on cash flow is likely to force CEOs to make hard decisions about where they allocate resources for the long-term and how they account for risks – including climate change – along the way.

We decided, going into this recession, that while we didn’t have a huge amount of debt compared to many people in the UK, we had to be very focused on cash generation and reducing our debt. We’ve done that over the last 15-18 months, and opted not to pursue an acquisition strategy during this difficult time, given the risk it would bring to the business.

Paul WalkerChief Executive, The Sage group plc, UK


pwc.com/ceosurvey

Organic growth for now The largest proportion of CEOs (38%) is positioning companies for better penetration of their existing markets. Such an approach is expected when capital and resources are scarce and business managers have fewer margins for error (see figure 3.2). However, the focus on organic growth captured in the survey this year fits a trend that predates the economic crisis. The concentration on existing markets has risen steadily since 23% of CEOs in 2007 cited it as the main vehicle for growth. It naturally follows that in each year since 2007, consistently fewer CEOs see more potential for growth in new geographic markets.

3.2

Existing markets remain the focus for growth

15

14

11

0%

20

38Better penetration of existing markets

New product development

New geographic markets

Mergers and acquisitions

New joint ventures and/orstrategic alliances

Q: Which one of the following potential opportunities for business growth do you see as the main opportunity to grow your business in the next 12 months? Base: All respondents (1,198)


Note: Responses of ‘Don’t know/Refused’ excluded.

An existing-markets focus is overwhelmingly favoured by the largest companies; they are also the most likely to have operations in different geographies already. CEOs in Asia-Pacific and Africa are also more likely to take this view than those in Western countries. An organic growth outlook for businesses in developing nations is not surprising; their home markets are growing more quickly and many were less impacted by the downturn. In fact, if anything, it appears to have accelerated longer-term growth strategies for some. ‘The recession in the Western economies has prompted Indian IT companies to re-examine their global delivery model and address weaknesses. And as a result, a number of these companies have moved up the value chain’, said Pawan Munjal of Hero Honda.

Cash is still kingCompanies are relying heavily on internally generated cash flow to finance growth. This is little changed from a year ago. With new customers proving difficult to acquire, businesses can be expected to increasingly focus on cash flows from the existing customer base. Nevertheless, the heightened focus on costs and cash preservation likely signals continued pricing pressure on suppliers and vendors in the near term. ‘People are thinking more about cash flow. If it lasts for 10 years, I have to take equipment for 10 years. This means that I do not spend 100% of my capital needs now; it means that I spend 50% now and 50% in 10 years’ time. This is affecting the strategy on all of our products’, said Mikael Mäkinen of Cargotec.

I am more worried about the growing public borrowing and its serious consequences. With all its seriousness, the crisis has shown us some positive lessons which we should take advantage of. The situation was worse in 2007, when there was heavy borrowing and a bubble with no clear end. This crisis should teach us to be more demanding of ourselves.

Pablo IslaDeputy Chairman and CEo, Inditex, Spain

I am concerned about the significant rally in the valuation of several businesses and corporations when this whole situation has not been completely absorbed or eliminated; this could be generating another kind of economic bubble. Such high valuations do not match the reality of some countries’ markets and economies. I think we might be seeing what we want to see – a kind of illusion. Moreover, the bad credit or toxic investments that have caused so much damage in the financial systems haven’t been assimilated or eliminated yet. So there is no real alignment between what we see and what we feel. One of the main things that will emerge is how our people, clients, consumers and the families of our co-workers feel. Because they are living the reality.’

Carlos Fernandez gonzalezChairman and CEo, grupo Modelo, Mexico


Slightly fewer expect to tap the bond markets, with 24% planning to issue debt v. 28% last year. It may suggest that the record-pace of issuance in 2009 in part served to satisfy immediate financing needs over longer term growth-related plans. It is also apparent that business leaders are reluctant to ‘over-finance’ in the near term. This is perhaps as much a measure of lessons learned as it is conservatism in the face of a period of slack demand.

CEOs are striving to keep debt low and liquidity cushions ample: 61% are expecting to change capital structures as a result of the crisis. ‘To the extent that changes in the capital markets dictate a more conservative approach to one’s balance sheets, I would say that every business in the world has been affected’, Andrew Ferrier of Fonterra Co-operative Group told us. ‘We plan to run our gearing at a significantly lower level than we have traditionally. That is not to say that we ran a high-risk strategy previously. But we are feeling as a result of market uncertainties that it is better to be more conservative going forward.’

Sourcing investments from cash generated by operations is certainly not a new approach, but a renewed emphasis could have profound implications for some suppliers as it impacts the purchasing and capital investing cycle, which

3.3

R&D and advertising are lower on the list of investment priorities

0%

Initiatives to realise cost efficiencies

No change

R&D and new product innovation

Strategic technology infrastructure or applications

Capital investments

Advertising and brand-building

Organic growth programmes

Leadership and talent development

Significant decrease in investment Moderate decrease Moderate increase Significant increase in investment

3741

21473

3

6

6

6

18461

1

16431

16

17

27

28

32

32412

12 7 42353

16 8 39323

Q: How do you plan to change your long-term investment decisions in the following areas over the next 3 years as a result of the economic crisis? Base: All respondents (1,198)



has accelerated in recent years. ‘Business development is often funded not out of profits but through investments using debt or equity finance. And while it may take 10–12 years to pay back long-term investments, technology often becomes obsolete after three years. So investment in new technology may actually hinder profitability. So a question arises: How can companies shift away from development financed by investment to development financed by profit generation?’ noted Tigran Nersisyan of Borodino Group.

Positioning for the long-term In a sign of the times, when CEOs were asked about their investment plans over the next three years – ‘initiatives to realise cost efficiencies’, cited by 78% of CEOs, was the most frequently identified target for a moderate or significant increase in investment. Investments that are commonly considered vital for long-term growth, such as R&D and new product development, and advertising and brand-building, lagged far behind. And capital investments were last on the list, with just 40% of CEOs planning to increase cap-ex spending (see figure 3.3). This is true even in capital-intensive industries, such as industrial manufacturing and automotive, which may reflect overcapacity relative to demand forecasts that have been revised downwards.


pwc.com/ceosurvey

Different strategies for growth emerge at the industry level. Banks and capital markets businesses, for example, say they are more likely than others to focus on organic growth; they are also among the least likely to consider new geographic markets as the best opportunity for growth, which partly reflects the regulatory barriers they face when they enter new geographies. This perhaps explains why banks are most likely to be investing in advertising and brand-building, in order to rebuild reputation and strengthen the franchises they already have.

On the other hand, industrial manufacturers are now among the least likely to be investing in initiatives to realise cost efficiencies. Many of them have been living under intense

margin pressures for years, as their downstream customers shopped for cheaper suppliers and as raw materials prices fluctuated. Cost efficiencies are a fact of life. Rather, these CEOs are now more likely than most of their peers to be increasing investments in R&D.

Risk and strategy go hand in handBusiness leaders are making changes ahead of what many expect may become a more restrictive regulatory environment once recovery sets in. Clearly, CEOs are more risk aware: 41% anticipate a ‘major change’ to their risk management approach (see figure 3.4).

3.4

More CEOs are planning a ‘a major change’ to risk management than other elements of their strategy, organisation or operating model

0%

Approach to managing risk

Investment decisions

Strategies for managing talent

Organisational structure (including M&A)

Focus on corporate reputation and rebuilding trust

Capital structure

Engagement with your board of directors

No change Some change A major change

43 4115

18 3348

295021

23 2749

Responding to changing consumer purchasing behaviours 17 2655

33 2343

37 1744

42 1641

Q: In the wake of the economic crisis, to what extent do you anticipate changes to any of the following areas of your company’s strategy, organisation or operating model? Base: All respondents (1,198)



The bank has a social purpose which is that of financing the system’s growth. Ultimately, that became irrelevant. What became relevant was what mechanisms one could put in place to try to earn more.

gerolamo Caccia DominioniCEo, Benetton group SPA, Italy

When the market changes, you cannot simply follow normal procedures or maintain outmoded strategies, management structures, or market positioning. New conditions dictate a quick response.

HUAng TianwenPresident, Sinosteel Corporation, China


Risk is not only moving up the corporate agenda in response to the crisis, but is seen as something that needs to be embraced by the organisation as a whole. That one in five say their board of directors is ‘significantly more engaged’ in assessing strategic risk indicates that for many, approaches to risk are moving beyond controls-based risk management to corporate strategy and financial management.

‘We did not realise that the damage was going to be so great. What inspires me most is that an enterprise like ours cannot go through such difficulties by its own efforts or by

3.5

Board agendas are getting busier – with assessing strategic risks at the top

0%

Assessing strategic risks

No change

Ensuring regulatory compliance

Focusing on the long-term key performance indicators

Assessing the leadership pipeline for succession planning

Enforcing high ethical standards

Constructively engaging the management team on strategy

Overseeing financial health

Significantly less engaged Less engaged More engaged Significantly more engaged

3 2051

23432

3

4

5

1744

1

1

15451

1 19

25

30

34

34

4132

1 17 44334

2 13 40

43

376

Aligning executive compensation with long-term performance 2 12355

1

Q: With respect to your board, to what extent is your board of directors modifying their behaviour as a result of the economic crisis? Base: All respondents (1,198)



using a simple form of protection. Therefore, we are paying more attention to our internal controls and management mechanisms’, said Kong Dong, Chairman of Air China Ltd.

The higher level of involvement by directors is not merely taking place in the financial sector, where risk standards are actively changing, but across all sectors. Directors are more focused on internal as well as external concerns, raising their engagement on long-term key performance indicators and succession planning as well as compliance and strategic risk (see figure 3.5).

Currently, the M&A market is very sluggish and there are few opportunities around. However, given the current climate, transactions that can represent the first step towards strong future development are not out of the question. Crucially, we have a clear strategy and know how to draw out and develop added value.

Bruno LafontChairman and Chief Executive Director, LAFARgE group, France

I believe that we will emerge stronger and with more influence. We have capital and a well-established business. So I believe that there will be clear opportunities for us.

Alfredo SáenzSecond Vicechairman and CEo, Banco Santander, Spain


pwc.com/ceosurvey

Risk management is a process for allOf those CEOs who said they plan some change or significant change to their approach to managing risk – and 89% are – slightly more said they plan to integrate risk management capabilities into business units than change other processes related to risk. They are assigning risk functions to business heads, a process that aligns risk with strategic business planning. ‘We learned that we must further strengthen our internal controls and risk management capabilities. The financial crisis has made it clear that all enterprises must be better prepared against future risks’, said Huang Tianwen of Sinosteel Corporation.

No clear consensus emerges on what CEOs consider the first steps to take as they reinvigorate and reinforce risk management in their organisations. Their focus ranges from changing reward structures to improving risk-related information analysis. They are also collectively managing risks with supply chain partners and working with other partners – regulators, customers, NGOs and even competitors – to prevent and prepare systemic risks.9

3.6

More companies raised their investment in climate change during the crisis than reduced

0%

Don’t know

52%45%

3%

Yes

No

Did your company have a climate change strategy one year ago?

If yes, how did the crisis impact your climate-change strategy?

7

13

17

Reduced investment in climate change strategy

Don’t know/refused

Delayed investment in climate change strategy

Raised investment in climate change strategy

Had no effect on investment 61

2

Q: Thinking back one year ago, did your company have a strategy to respond to the challenges posed by climate change? Base: All respondents (1,198)

Q: To what extent has the recession affected your company’s investment in its climate change strategy? Base: Respondents who had climate change strategy in place one year ago (623)


Companies in sectors generally more reliant on the global trading system are raising their engagement to address risks in the supply chain and exposure to systemic or low- probability, high-impact events. Auto industry businesses are nearly unanimous in responding to potential supply chain issues, and planning further collaboration with partners to collectively manage risks. They are also the most concerned over financially stressed suppliers, at 76%, compared with a global average of 47%.

Setting the pace on climate changeThe recession restricted corporate investment in many areas – but climate change wasn’t one of them. Indeed, climate change raised its position on the CEO agenda despite the severity of the recession. More CEOs said they were concerned about climate change this year than last. And among the slim majority of CEOs who had climate change strategies in place before the crisis, more CEOs maintained or even increased investment in their climate strategies than reined in spending (see figure 3.6).

9 ‘Exploring Emerging Risks’, PricewaterhouseCoopers (January 2009).


Corporate responses to climate change are linked to government policy and regulatory requirements: 61% of CEOs were preparing for the impacts of climate-change initiatives such as emissions trading or carbon taxes (see figure 3.7). This despite significant uncertainties over the direction and speed of climate policy. Only 25% of CEOs agree in the survey – conducted prior to the Copenhagen climate change summit in December – that the government has clear and consistent long-term environmental policies. In this regard, then, the failure to produce a binding global agreement on climate change at Copenhagen was a setback for CEOs.

Yet Copenhagen may not have affected CEOs’ plans that dramatically. Many leaders are moving ahead despite both financial pressures and the regulatory uncertainty. ‘I think that in 2009 sustainability has been less front-of-mind. But I have no doubt that as we move through the current global economic crisis and we start to get back to the ’new normal’, sustainability issues will become front-of-mind again for the consumer’, said Ken MacKenzie, Managing Director and CEO of Australian packaging group Amcor.

3.7

Three out of five CEOs are preparing for the impacts of climate-change initiatives such as emissions trading

Don’t know/refused

Yes

No 35%

61%

4%

Q: Is your company preparing for the impacts of climate-change initiatives in the coming 12 months? Base: All respondents (1,198)


Note: Climate-change initiatives defined to include cap-and-trade or other carbon pricing policies, energy efficiency standards, industry or capital markets reporting requirements, climate-change adaptation strategies, and other efforts to move towards a low-carbon economy.

It also makes good business sense to find innovative solutions to this issue [sustainability] and to create ‘green growth’ long-term. We see a growing public interest in ‘green topics’ and sustainability, which is catered for by our books, magazines, TV programmes and also in our printing business. Overall we will further explore the market for green products and services.

Hartmut ostrowskiChairman and CEo, Bertelsmann Ag, germany

CEOs have to recognise that a lot of their long-term planning will need to be tossed out of the window. There has to be a lot more volatility built into your modelling; your ability to do your three- and five-year planning in that kind of an environment is diminished. You have to be much more tactical.

Ian BremmerPresident, Eurasia group, US


pwc.com/ceosurvey

In a separate survey of executives with responsibility over sustainability practices, two-thirds of large companies believe their efforts, including publishing reports on environmental performance, go beyond legal requirements.10

So many leaders are beginning to craft a business case for sustainability. The output from the World Economic Forum’s Task Force on Low Carbon Prosperity, a global multi-stakeholder group, set the tone for proactive business leaders to begin that process independently and in collaboration with the public sector.11 ‘We have always been interested in moving in this direction. But even for us, even in this, it is important to get ourselves up to date and therefore perhaps to become less, I would say, provocative/challenging and a little more specific’, Gerolamo Caccia Dominioni, CEO of Italian fashion retailer Benetton Group SPA, told us.

Several business drivers underpin the business benefits of a climate-change strategy. More CEOs expect climate change will lead to new products and services for their companies than those who worry that climate change entails a significant expense. And CEOs are attuned to the shift in public perceptions of climate change and corporate responsibility: Nearly two-thirds of CEOs in Western Europe, Asia-Pacific and Latin America expect a reputational advantage from their climate strategies (see figure 3.8). ‘As a consumer marketing company, our biggest concern is that consumers will choose not to buy our brands because we have not done the right thing,’ said Paul S. Walsh of UK-based beverage company Diageo plc. ‘But having done the right thing, it’s invigorating to see how that can ignite the imagination of our employees and the communities in which we operate. It also affords us the opportunity to get out ahead of regulation.’

3.8

Reputational advantage is the leading driver of responses to climate-change initiatives

0%

Climate-change initiatives willslow growth in my industry

My company will benefit fromgovernment funds or financial

incentives for ‘green’investments

Compliance with climate-changeinitiatives will be a significant

expense for my company

Our response to climate-changeinitiatives will provide a reputational advantage for my company among

key stakeholders, includingemployees

North America Western Europe Asia Pacific Latin America

CEE Middle East Africa

My company will need to reduce itsemissions significantly

Climate-change initiatives will lead tosignificant new product and service

opportunities for my company

51

64

64

66

43

57

70

42

55

45

52

30

39

25

26

38

37

40

22

29

43

32

34

37

38

24

36

30

33

29

39

23

15

25

23

30

20

19

41

11

21

13

Global average

Q: How much you agree or disagree with the following statements about the potential impacts of climate-change initiatives? Base: All respondents (28-442)


Note: Respondents who stated ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’.

10 ‘Appetite for change: Global business perspectives on tax and regulation for a low carbon economy’, PricewaterhouseCoopers (January 2010). 11 For more information on the Task Force on Low Carbon Prosperity, for which PricewaterhouseCoopers served as project advisor, visit: www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/ghg/index.htm


12 ‘The China Greentech Report 2009’, PricewaterhouseCoopers (September 2009).

One driver that fails to register broadly – that is, outside China – is government financial incentives and other measures to ‘go green’. China has been the major beneficiary of the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism carbon offset programme and investments in low-carbon technology over the past decade have accelerated as part of the government’s stimulus spending directed at infrastructure. These investments are seeding what one report estimates could develop into a US$500 billion to US$1 trillion greentech market by 2013.12

Energy companies and utilities are more likely to have climate strategies in place and lead all sectors in preparing for climate initiatives in the near term. The two industries are already heavily regulated on emissions in many nations.

We do take full legal, economic, and social responsibility to protect the environment, which – as a by-product – also benefits our public reputation. Compared to the US, Europe, Japan and other industrialised countries, China still has a long way to go in terms of environmental protection. Only through relevant laws and regulations established by government, and voluntary implementation by enterprises of those laws and regulations, will the goal of environmental protection be achieved.


I would like to see greater focus by CEOs on long-term environmental issues. We must not be slaves of the immediate. Otherwise, we will destroy the future.

Dr. James MwangiMD and CEo, Equity Bank, Kenya

At 53% and 55%, respectively, they are also more concerned about the cost of climate-related regulation than the global average of 34%, and acknowledge the potential for slower industry growth as a result. Equally, however, they are more convinced that climate-related initiatives will lead to substantial new products and services (62% and 67%, respectively) than the global average (47%).

Interestingly, of all business leaders, those in energy and utilities are among the most likely to believe that efficiencies will improve natural resource usage over the next three years. The sentiment is not shared by some of their greatest customers: CEOs in automotive and transportation and logistics are among the most likely to believe the opposite.


pwc.com/ceosurvey

In the middle of a financial crisis and billion-dollar bank bailouts, it may come as a surprise that an inability to finance growth does not score among the top-ten concerns for CEOs globally. The relatively low concern on financing, at least in the short term, is consistent with surveys from central banks in the US, the Eurozone and Japan, which revealed persistently weak demand for commercial loans through the first nine months of 2009. Chinese banks were a notable exception among the G20 economies. Bank lending surged as the Chinese government pushed stimulus measures largely through the banking sector.

Fund-raising pressures typically lag a recovery and capital spending remains subdued in most economies. Many companies also rely on their own resources: 83% of business leaders in the survey expect internally generated

cash flow to help finance growth plans. Moreover, many companies have completed a round of cost cuts and moved to refinance at low interest rates.

Post-crisis bank lending capacity is untestedLook ahead, however, and it is clear that financing will become a more pressing issue. If liquidity was ‘last year’s problem’, the survey responses suggest that access to capital is a strong contender for ‘next year’s problem’ – meaning it will rise in importance as growth spreads in 2010 and beyond, and companies seek more funds to invest. Over half of CEOs expect access to bank financing and credit will become more difficult after the recovery sets in. Forty-five percent anticipate more difficult access to capital through the debt markets, despite the healthy rebound in the bond market in 2009 (see

3.9

Access to capital is expected to become more difficult

0%

Compliance and reporting to meet capital markets requirements

Same as before the crisis

Access to capital from alternative investors (e.g. private equity or sovereign wealth funds)

Access to capital through equity markets

Access to capital through debt markets

Access to bank financing and credit

Significantly easier Moderately easier Moderately more difficult Significantly more difficult

10 15392

16 10415

17 7384

19 5324

20 7

28

26

29

35

32303

Q: For each of the following, how do you expect conditions to change after economic recovery sets in, compared with before the economic crisis? Base: All respondents (1,198)



Access to capital is a looming problem


figure 3.9). ‘Which ever way you look at it, the cost of capital has definitely gone up’, said Paul S. Walsh of Diageo plc. ‘So we continue to try to level out our investment profile.’

Expectations that access to capital will become more difficult stretch across industries and company sizes. Yet it is expected to weigh more heavily on smaller companies. ‘First of all, for our SME customers, there are not many options around finance. The old days of long-term leases, HP on assets, is something either they’re in or have done or would find more difficult, so a lot of them are restricted to the more traditional markets of banking’, said Paul Walker of The Sage Group plc. ‘Even some of the venture capital availability for SMEs has probably disappeared, so I don’t think they have the same options as the larger corporates when looking for finance.’

Smaller companies in the survey are showing higher levels of concern over financially stressed suppliers than their peers. Unlike the largest companies, they are more reliant on banks for financing.

Challenge comes when businesses start to growSeveral factors point to tighter capital conditions. Chief among these is the prospect for higher interest rates as inflation rises. As always with interest rate cycles, it is a question of when. CEOs anticipating a 2011 recovery in their industries are the most concerned over an inability to finance growth at an acceptable cost of capital.

Other concerns surrounding capital costs are likely related to global market conditions. Cross-border capital flows, including foreign direct investment, lending, and sales and

purchases of securities, dropped over 80% in 2008, leading to volatility in exchange rates and higher costs of capital in some emerging economies last year.13 Capital markets stability remains a highly ranked concern for CEOs, although not at the level seen last year.

In developed economies, weak demand for lending throughout much of 2009 has left the post-crisis capacity of banking sectors to fuel and support growth largely untested. Banks are expected to remain risk-averse as regulations evolve and as they repair their balance sheets and the weak securitisation market continues to limit their own sources for loan funds.

‘There is a lot of concentration on lower risk, higher strength organisations. Unfortunately, what happens in that environment is that the people who don’t need the money are the ones who have the money easily available to them’, said Michael I. Roth of Interpublic Group.

The challenge will come when businesses start to grow and need more people and more capital. The implications for companies with weaker market positions or those that are more reliant on banks for credit are clear. Banks will seek to lend to customers they regard as a long-term and valuable partner. ‘As far as our customers are concerned, capital is available, but not to everybody. That’s a huge difference now’, said Mikael Mäkinen of Cargotec. ‘Most of our ‘key risk’ customers do get capital. However, a few years back, you could see all kinds of companies popping up like mushrooms and starting up businesses – that capital is not available today. That should mean it is a better foundation. The sources of capital that our customers go to are being much more selective than before. That is a huge change.’

13 ‘Global capital markets: Entering a new era’, McKinsey Quarterly (September 2009).


pwc.com/ceosurvey

When we analysed responses related to threats to growth, engagement with boards and regulation, we found that two sets of CEOs emerged from the others. Each represents different attitudes towards achieving success in the post-crisis environment, spanning geography, industry and size. Both engaged in similar levels of restructuring activities last year, and both also share similar outlooks on revenue growth prospects. Yet, the two clusters indicate that despite universal relief that the worst of the crisis appears over, not everyone is approaching recovery in the same way. Here’s a look at where they differ on key points in our survey.

Consolidators: Drawing on existing networks The first cluster, representing roughly a third of business leaders in our survey, we call ‘Consolidators’ for their conservatism: they are making few changes to their strategies and operations. Consolidators come from all regions of the world, although two-thirds are based in North America and Europe. The majority are established businesses with a long tenure. They are far less concerned about threats to business growth than the Adaptors, but they exhibit greater antipathy to regulation in general, particularly regulation surrounding foreign investment and innovation.

Consolidators are focused on strengthening their existing market position. They are also more likely to be planning to strike strategic alliances and to close acquisitions than other CEOs.

Consolidators investment plans are restrained. Most Consolidators will rely on internally-generated cash flow to finance growth. And fewer plan to raise or change spending on technology, R&D or capital investments. (See figure 3.10.)

Consolidators expect fewer organisational changes. More Consolidators cut workforces during the recession. While the two groups were equally likely to have implemented cost-cuts in the past year, Consolidators are less likely to be planning cuts going forward. Consolidators are less likely to outsource and far less likely to collaborate with external specialists suggesting a more traditional internal organisational approach.

Adaptors: Concerns prompt radical changes to the business modelThe other set of CEOs, whom we call the ‘Adaptors’, is taking bold steps in many directions, to adjust to a new environment.

Roughly one-sixth of business leaders fall into this category. Adaptors come from all regions although 63% are based in emerging markets in Asia-Pacific and Latin America. They are a mix of both small and large businesses. They are far more concerned over a range of threats to growth: they are twice as concerned as Consolidators on their ability to finance growth, exchange-rate volatility and energy costs. They are nearly three times as concerned as Consolidators over supply chain security. These concerns are leading them to take decisive actions to adapt to the new environment and mitigate risks to their business. Adaptors are aggressively changing operating models and investment strategies and they are not done with restructuring. More are planning cost-cuts in the near-term than Consolidators.

Adaptors are reorienting strategies. (See figure 3.11.) More are planning investments in technology, R&D and capital investments. They are investing in people, including in training and leadership programmes.

3.10

Adapters are more aggressively investing in a range of areas

Initiatives to realize costefficiencies

Consolidators Adaptors

0%

Leadership and talentdevelopment


Strategic technologyinfrastructure or applications

R&D and new productinnovation

Advertising andbrand-building

Capital investments

72

84

61

80

60

76

52

76

37

54

35

55

74

49

Q: How do you plan to change your long-term investment decisions in the following areas over the next 3 years as result of the economic crisis? Base: All respondents (361, 215)


Note: Respondents who stated ‘moderate’ or ‘significant increase in investment’.

Post-crisis models emerge


Adaptors are highly risk-aware – and are pro-actively addressing many of their concerns. They are more likely to be pushing risk management practices out into all business operations. And they are taking steps to prepare for systemic risks.

Our viewIt is too early to tell whether one strategy will be more successful than the other. In fact, in our view, Consolidators and Adaptors represent archetypal strategies that could both lead to lasting success, building on particular organisational strengths and environmental factors. Yet, clearly risks remain for both.

Consolidators feel they are now on the right track for recovery, that the recession helped them ‘cut the fat’ and do what they do better, but otherwise, they are not looking to

change drastically. For this set, too much change may be a distraction from the market or departure from their business model. Or, they may have the luxury to be more conservative as they wait for their competition to thin out. They will concentrate on finding ways to keep existing customers in a challenging environment and alliances and joint ventures could be a smart way to offer customers more.

However, there is a risk that new players, with innovative products, emerge and that Consolidators may not have the agility to adjust their operating model. They are cutting fewer costs and investing relatively less in R&D, talent and organic growth programmes than Adaptors.

Regulatory simplicity and fairness are also a cornerstone priority for Consolidators. They are aware that regulation shapes growth strategies – regulations impacting innovation and foreign investment are particularly anathema. But are they equally attuned to potential change to regulatory frameworks as recoveries set in? They are less likely than Adaptors to believe government can improve policy by more engagement with business.

Adaptors are undergoing significant change to create a new basis for sustainable growth over the long-term. This may signify a belief that as the market shakes out, this is the time to come forward and seize opportunity. For Adaptors, this includes being more innovative about climate change, more collaborative about regulation, and more agile. They want to be ready to compete in the emerging environment, and potentially steal the lead over other organisations that might be taking a ‘business as usual’ approach. These businesses will be more resilient to change over the long-term and are creating a talent pipeline for the long-term, despite having had to make some short-term headcount reductions.

Yet there is no real comfort zone for Adaptors. Some are acting from a position of strength; some may be under duress. Each may be as likely to boom as to bust. While most expect to finance growth from internal sources, their wider ranging investment strategies may require additional, alternative sources of finance in a lending environment that most CEOs expect is about to become more difficult. They recognise that capital is likely to be in short supply in the coming months and they may find it difficult to execute their strategy for that reason. There might also be a danger that they are changing too rapidly, before it is really clear what the new environment will look like.

3.11

Adaptors are more likely to be changing their strategy, organisation or operating model


Consolidators Adaptors

0%

Responding to changingconsumer purchasing

behaviours



Organisational structure(including M&A)

Focus on corporate reputationand rebuilding trust

Capital structure

76

92

75

92

74

89

69

87

57

75

53

68

44

69

85

66

Engagement with yourboard of directors

Q: In the wake of the economic crisis, to what extent do you anticipate changes to any of the following areas of your company’s strategy, organisation or operating model? Base: All respondents (361, 215)


Note: Respondents who stated ‘some change’ or ‘a major change’.

pwc.com/ceosurvey

Final thoughts

pwc.com/ceosurvey


Lessons learned and applied to 2010

One of the more consistent regrets was not acting fast enough when conditions turned. ‘If I was to do it all over again, I would be more pessimistic. All the stuff I had to do, for example in cost savings, I would do at the beginning. Be more radical’, reads one fairly typical comment. The idea that some businesses or entire industries can be immune from or little changed by conditions appears to have taken some time to defeat. It is not easy to appreciate how a bankruptcy on Wall Street can so swiftly sap liquidity throughout the banking system.

Judging by the number of times certain words or phrases were used, if there had been signposts warning of the turmoil on the road ahead and how to prepare, they would have read, in order: ‘Evaluate risk’, ‘Cost is king’, ‘Cash is king’, ‘Be transparent’, ‘Greed can be hazardous’, ‘Don’t Trust anymore’, ‘Be flexible’ and helpfully, from a CEO in Uruguay, ‘Always have a Plan B’.

CEOs are attempting to strengthen the resilience of their organisations and yet remain attuned to the opportunities emerging. It is a difficult balancing act, as attested by the apparent contradictions they conveyed. Lessons learned from the financial crisis revolve chiefly around gaining more control over these newly appreciated vulnerabilities, internal and external.

Long-term planning is critical – but be prepared to change at a moment’s noticeThe importance of strategy, clearly understood by customers, employees and business partners, cannot be underestimated in a crisis. Yet the speed with which market conditions change today can render planning models moot. The key is embedding agility throughout an organisation to enable rapid reaction to changing trends while maintaining a strategic positioning. ‘Flexibility is the most important weapon’, said a CEO in Portugal. ‘Flexibility is the key to smoothing the effects of the crisis and is needed in production, costs and commercial actions.’

Stay disciplined on costs, but incur them to innovateThe vigorous cost-cutting measures adopted over the past year exposed inefficiencies throughout organisations, and CEOs remain highly focused on costs. Yet this inward concentration needs to be balanced with a long-term focus on what it will take to remain competitive. ‘I’ve discovered that you can’t actually reduce your costs dramatically and

Lessons learned from the financial crisis revolve chiefly around gaining more control over these newly appreciated vulnerabilities, internal and external.

Throughout this report, we have described how business leaders responded to the challenges brought by the recession and how they are positioning their companies for the future. We also asked CEOs to describe, anonymously and in their own words, what lessons they are taking away from the crisis.


pwc.com/ceosurvey

still remain profitable’, said a UK-based CEO. With so much of the world’s growth expectations placed on demand from emerging markets, more heated competition is likely, with domestic competitors buoyed by relative financial strength to compete with Western multinationals. Innovation and ew product development are cornerstones for future positioning. One CEO said the crisis taught his company not to outsource on innovation. ‘Don’t wait on another crisis for change’, said a CEO in industrial manufacturing. ‘It’s with innovation than we can be strong.’

Encourage banks to lend – but assume they won’tCompanies are paying far closer attention to their own cash management and leverage, and have learned not to rely on a single source for financing. ‘It had never been a big factor before, but borrowing levels have over-extended companies financially, leaving them vulnerable to the whim of the banks’, said a UK CEO. The reality is that this is the time to deepen the relationship with the bank. While a majority of CEOs expect to finance growth from internal cash, 40% also expect to turn to banks. Financing costs are rising as banks become more selective; they will favour companies whose strategy and long-term outlook give them confidence.

Manage risk in good times and badThe importance of good risk management practices was by far the most frequently cited ‘lesson learned’. CEOs fault their own approaches to risk as much as risk practices in the financial sector. ‘The regulations are fine, but it’s the companies that should evaluate the risks better’, concluded a CEO in financial services. ‘We thought the party of 2008 would continue forever. We need to take our risk management seriously’, said a Czech CEO. Effective risk management cannot be done on the fly. The time to manage risks and address complacency is when conditions are improving. ‘Risk management should be a long term systematic strategy. Not just implemented at the time of crisis’, commented a CEO in China. The alternative has proven daunting. ‘Managing risk in a changed environment is a big challenge’, noted a Belgian CEO.

CEOs were very candid about the lessons they learned during this crisis. We could not possibly include all of the helpful lessons in this document, so we put many on our website.

We welcome you to visit www.pwc.com/ceosurvey to read CEOs’ views, in their own words, on how they intend to avoid another crisis, on the tough choices they are making to enforce cost discipline while preserving long-term investments, on the lasting legacies of the crisis on regulation and public trust, and how they are reshaping their strategies to compete in a post-crisis environment.

We thought the party of 2008 would continue forever. We need to take our risk management seriously.


This is the 13th Annual PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Global CEO Survey and we have followed the same methodology as we used the previous years to ensure we are fairly representing the emerging economies of the world. We have conducted interviews in 52 countries worldwide, and varied the number of interviews in line with their GDP, measured at market exchange rates, in 2006.

Research methodology and key contacts

In total, we conducted 1,198 interviews with CEOs in 52 countries between 24th August and 16th November 2009. By region, 442 interviews were conducted in Western Europe, 289 in Asia Pacific, 167 in Latin America, 139 in North America (39 in Canada), 93 in Eastern Europe and 68 in the Middle East & Africa.

The interviews were spread across a significant range of industries. Further details, by region and industry, are available on request. The interviews were mainly conducted by telephone, with the exception of Japan, where a postal survey was administered and Africa, where most of the interviews were conducted face to face. All the interviews were conducted in confidence and on an unattributable basis. The lower threshold for inclusion in the top 30 countries was companies with more than 100 employees or revenues of more than $10 million. This is raised to 500 employees or revenues of more than $50 million in the top 10 countries.

37% of the companies had revenues in excess of $1 billion, and a further 38% had revenues of $100 million to $1 billion. The remaining 21% had revenues of less than $100 million. Company ownership is recorded as private for 50% of all the companies, with the remaining 47% listed on at least one stock exchange.

To better appreciate what is underpinning the CEOs’ outlook for growth we also conducted in-depth interviews with 27 CEOs from five continents over the fourth quarter of

2009. Their insights cover a wide range of topics, from prospects for recovery to new dynamics of post-crisis environment, balancing growth with risk management and lessons learnt. Their interviews are quoted in this report, and more extensive extracts can be found in the CEO Story supplement. The full interviews and a selection of video bites are available on the dedicated website www.pwc.com/gx/en/ceo-survey/perspectives.html.

PricewaterhouseCoopers’ extensive network of experts and specialists has provided its input into the analysis of the survey. Our experts span many countries and industries.

Note: Not all figures add up to 100% due to rounding of percentages and to the exclusion of ‘neither/nor’ and ‘don’t know’ responses.

For further information on the survey content, please contact: Sophie Lambin, Director of Global Thought Leadership +44 20 7213 3160 [email protected]

For media enquiries, please contact: Mike Davies, Director of Global Communications +44 20 7804 2378 [email protected]

For enquiries about the research methodology, please contact: Claire Styles, Thought Leadership Research Manager +44 20 7804 0115 [email protected]


pwc.com/ceosurvey

Re-thinking and Re-shaping the business environment: Government and the Global CEO (January 2010)

This publication assesses the changing relationship between government and business as the world emerges from crisis and sets out on the road to recovery. The research carried out for the PricewatehouseCoopers‘ 13th Annual Global CEO Survey is extended and deepened by including a selection of interviews with senior decision-makers in governmental organisations across the world to understand better the implications for government policy of the views of CEOs as we emerge from troubled times.

Appetite for change: Global business perspectives on tax and regulation for a low carbon economy (January 2010)

A global study which explores the views of the business community on environmental issues and perceptions of the current environmental tax and regulation regimes. The survey comprises almost 700 interviews worldwide, covering 15 countries. The paper is intended to help inform the dialogue between national governments and international institutions on tax policy in this arena and to ensure that the perspective of business is well represented and understood.

Biodiversity and business risk: (January 2010)

Biodiversity and business riskA Global Risks Network briefing

World Economic Forum January 2010

A briefing paper for participants engaged in biodiversity related discussions at the World Economic Forum Davos-Klosters Annual Meeting

Prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the World Economic Forum

Recently, the broad systemic implications of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation linking to resource management, climate change and population growth have been more explicitly articulated. This briefing paper explores both specific and broader systemic effects and the associated business risks.

Low carbon economy index (December 2009)

pwc

Low Carbon Economy IndexDecember 2009

This publication examines climate change issues and the challenges facing the world economy as it works to reduce carbon emissions. The index looks at the period from 2000 to 2050, and an intermediate timeframe to 2020.

The India competitiveness review 2009 (November 2009)

TheIndia Competitiveness Review 2009

Thierry Geiger, World Economic Forum

Sushant Palakurthi Rao, World Economic Forum

In collaboration with

Confederation of Indian Industry


This paper shares advance findings of PwC’s 13th Annual Global CEO Survey for the Indian chief executives. The analysis suggests that the Indian CEOs remain optimistic despite the global economic crisis. Underlying this confidence is their belief that the country’s economy is well on its way to recovery, with nearly two-thirds expecting recovery by the middle of 2010.

Rebuilding the global economy: Rebalance, Connectedness, Sustainability (November 2009)

Rebuilding the Global EconomyRebalance l Connectedness l Sustainability

This survey of business leaders in the APEC region explores the impact of the financial crisis and the role of APEC in rebuilding the global economy going forward, with particular emphasis on the themes of rebalancing, connectedness, and sustainability.

Further readingThese publications can all be found on www.pwc.com/researchandinsights


Managing tomorrow’s people: How the downturn will change the future of work (September 2009)

Pay and promotion freezes, changes to pension schemes, cuts in recruitment and slashed training budgets have eroded the trust between some employers and their employees. This

paper uses scenario planning to map how the global economic crisis will impact the widely accepted shortage of talent predicted for tomorrow’s world.

Exploring emerging risks: (January 2009)

Managing known risks

Exploringemergingrisks

Extending Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) to address emerging risks

Extending Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) to address emerging risks: This paper looks at how organisations identify, assess, and manage risks, what techniques they are using as the basis for determining response strategies that align with their strategy and risk appetite and tolerance.

PricewaterhouseCoopers’ 12th Annual Global CEO Survey (January 2009)

Fool proof plans

Futureproofplans

12th Annual Global CEO SurveyRedefining success

This survey sets out to further explore the pessimism that prevailed across all geographic regions, business sectors and levels of economic development, painting a picture of how CEOs were navigating the time of extreme economic uncertainty while working to achieve enduring success.


pwc.com/ceosurvey

The following individuals and groups in PricewaterhouseCoopers and elsewhere contributed to the production of this report.

Acknowledgements

Editorial teamEmily Church Sophie Lambin Larry Yu

Editorial boardCristina Ampil Mike Davies Nick Jones Christopher Michaelson Elizabeth Montgomery Oriana Pound Deepali Sussman Leyla Yildirim

Advisory boardHans Borghouts Tom Craren Dan DiFilippo Moira Elms Glen Peters David Phillips Tony Poulter Michael Rendell Mark Schofield Jeremy Scott

Publishing and Project managementAngela Lang Irina Ruseva Suzanne Snowden Alina Stefan Claire Styles

Online contentVhanya Barba Lee Connett Tracy Fulham Tim Kau

Design and layoutStudioec4

Research and data analysisThe research was coordinated by the PricewaterhouseCoopers International Survey Unit, located in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

pwc.com/ceosurveyPricewaterhouseCoopers provides industry-focused assurance, tax and advisory services to build public trust and enhance value for our clients and their stakeholders. More than 163,000 people in 151 countries across our network share their thinking, experience and solutions to develop fresh perspectives and practical advice.

© 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” and “PwC” refer to the network of member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (PwCIL). Each member firm is a separate legal entity and does not act as agent of PwCIL or any other member firm. PwCIL does not provide any services to clients. PwCIL is not responsible or liable for the acts or omissions of any of its member firms nor can it control the exercise of their professional judgment or bind them in any way. No member firm is responsible or liable for the acts or omissions of any other member firm nor can it control the exercise of another member firm’s professional judgment or bind another member firm or PwCIL in any way.

Printed on FSC 100% recycled material, supporting responsible use of forest resources. Produced at a mill that is certified to the ISO14001 environmental management. This product has been awarded the NAPM 100% Recycled Mark.

100%

RethinkState-owned

Reshape Smart regulation

ResultMutual prosperityRethinking and reshaping the business environment: Government and the global CEOSetting a smarter course for growth

2 Government and the Global CEO

Foreword

Welcome to ‘Rethinking and Reshaping the business environment: Government and the Global CEO’ in which we assess the changing relationship between government and business as the world emerges from crisis and sets out on the road to recovery.

We have again extended and deepened the research for PricewatehouseCoopers’ 13th Annual Global CEO Survey by including a selection of interviews with senior decision-makers in governmental organisations across the world. Our aim in doing this − and in publishing the findings here − is to understand better the implications for government policy of the views of CEOs (an increasing number of them in companies with some form of government backing) as we emerge from troubled times.

As such, we believe that this report represents a further significant contribution to mutual understanding and productive future relationships between the public and private sectors.

‘A slow Spring’

Business confidence is recovering, after a dramatic fall in 2008, with government fiscal stimulus being critical to this recovery. But CEOs highlight some major challenges in this year’s Survey, not least of which are fears of a protracted global recession and over-regulation with worries about protectionism also rising rapidly. And CEOs are responding, by cutting costs and reducing staffing whilst focusing much more on managing risk.

The ‘Great Recession’ has also spurred unprecedented levels of government intervention in business, particularly in financial services, and highlighted the importance of government’s role in addressing global and systemic risks. Indeed, a remarkable feature since our last Survey is the degree to which business and government have become increasingly co-dependent – with one in seven companies in our Survey now having some form of government backing.

Restoring confidence, re-building trust

So what does this mean for government? Whilst CEOs battle to restore their relationship with consumers as well as regulators, trust in government’s brand, whether at international, national, regional or city levels, is perceived by the government officials we interviewed to have survived. Indeed, government intervention has been essential to help restore public confidence, particularly in the banking sector, a fact recognised by the CEOs we interviewed.

In our view, the increased optimism that business and government can overcome systemic risks is the most important message from business in this year’s Survey. There remains, however, uncertainty amongst CEOs about government’s longer term role in shaping, and being an active part of, the business environment. How far has government changed the rules of the game forever?


This year the 13th Annual Global CEO Survey website contains new, interactive tools, which allow users to customise data and charts.

View an interactive compilation of video, key quotes and transcripts at • pwc.com/ceosurvey/indepth.

Examine the data from every angle – by business issue, region and industry sector at • pwc.com/ceosurvey/thestory.

Look at the • industry summaries – a complete picture of the issues at the heart of each industry.

Hand-pick the most relevant information and create a • custom report.

pwc.com/ceosurvey

Taking off

Fixing the financial system, managing publicly owned stakes in companies, coordinating better internationally on global issues such as climate change, and attending to long-standing problems in healthcare, infrastructure and other areas all mean significant change for nations, and will require increased collaboration between the public and private sector. Governments need to continue to invest in, and strategically manage, the ‘capitals’ needed by any society for long-term prosperity – financial, intellectual, social, environmental, technical and political capital. And they must increasingly collaborate cross-border to build joint capitals ranging from intelligent transport systems to international energy management, and do so in a way that is sustainable and does not mortgage the future.

This report sets out the views of CEOs and of government officials as the world sets off down a new runway to growth. It considers the implications of the post-crisis environment for governments and how they must act in their different roles: as owners of businesses; as major debtors internationally; and as smarter, more collaborative regulators. And it considers the role of the G20 as the new forum for mitigating global risks and putting in place policies and mechanisms for collaboration that are appropriate for the challenges of global public risk management in the 21st century.

Finally, we would like to thank not only 1,198 company leaders from over 50 countries who shared their views with us for the CEO Survey, but also the government officials who took the time to share their thoughts with us. We are grateful to them for their cooperation and frank insights. We look forward to a continuing and fruitful dialogue on how to create the society and government of the future for the citizens of tomorrow today, in a trusted, sustainable and more collaborative society.

Jan Sturesson & Carter Pate Global Government and Public Services Co-LeadersPricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Contents

Summary 05

Global recovery, global risks 08

Government as strategic game-changer? 15

The smarter, more collaborative regulator 21

The outlook for policy harmonisation 27

Government as debtor 31

Final thoughts: Governments as intelligent Investors 36

Acknowledgements 37

Key contacts 38


Yet the unprecedented global coordination by governments to stabilise the financial system last year has drawn qualified praise from business:

CEOs have reversed their opinions from last year about •whether businesses and governments can successfully mitigate systemic risk – a majority (57%) now think they can (compared with 46% last year).

Almost half of CEOs interviewed (49%) also believe that •government ownership helps to stabilise an industry during a crisis.

This optimism for international coordination, and for more effective governmental collaboration with business, is one of the major findings in the survey this year, one which we believe can reset the relationship between business and government.

Clearly, such collaboration is not easy – the recent Copenhagen climate change talks demonstrated the pressures created by competing national interests when trying to negotiate global frameworks. Leaders in government are well aware of the challenges that lie ahead whilst business also worries about the consequences, as shown by the rise in CEO concerns of protectionism in our Survey (up ten percentage points from last year).

Leaders in the public and private sectors know that they have important, and different, roles to play if systemic risks are to be mitigated successfully. In our view, this year’s Survey highlights the need for governments to build on this platform and focus on creating and delivering value in their different roles:

as larger owners of business: with one in seven of CEOs •surveyed having some form of government backing (up from one in ten last year), governments are altering the business landscape and becoming strategic ‘game-changers’ as owners, customers, competitors and regulators to different degrees in different markets.

as • credible debtors: with the rapid rise in budget deficits in many economies, particularly developed G20 economies (with debt to GDP ratios projected to rise to 118% by 2014), credible plans are needed now setting out the exit strategy from government stimulus packages and subsequent actions to turn the tide of debt. Tough decisions involving increasing tax revenues and reducing spending will be critical to restoring the public finances back to health. Failing to fix these fiscal deficits, by contrast, would be a recipe for persistently high interest rates, more volatile currencies and a less certain environment for business investment, employment and growth.

as • more collaborative, smarter regulators of business: with six in ten CEOs concerned about over-regulation (and a rise of 9% of those ‘extremely concerned’ from last year), and a significant increase in CEO perceptions of rising regulatory burdens (67%, compared with 57% last year), dialogue and closer working between business and government – co-design – is needed more than ever to achieve smarter regulation.

5

Summary

Business confidence is returning with 81% of CEOs showing some measure of confidence on revenue growth prospects over the next 12 months even though 60% expect national economic recoveries only in the second half of 2010 or later. CEOs in BRIC economies, and in large companies, are by far the most confident. But CEOs still have many concerns – of protracted recession (65%), of over-regulation (60%), of unstable capital markets (59%) and as yet unfounded fears of a wave of protectionism (49%).


Strategic ‘game-changers’

More than two thirds of the CEOs surveyed have significant concerns about long term state involvement in business with important implications for government policies on competition and fair markets. Despite the antipathy of most CEOs to state ownership, including a majority of the CEOs surveyed with government backing, there are also times when government intervention is necessary to stabilise industries as CEOs also largely agree.

Given the increase in government stakes in business – an extension of last year’s trend – the challenge for government now is to make decisions on how long they will retain their stakes in business and, for those that it is decided should return to the private sector, set out their exit strategy alongside a realistic timetable.

Whether it is ideologically or economically driven, governments will still retain some stakes in businesses for the foreseeable future. For instance, in our report ‘Back to the Future’, which focused on the relationship between government and financial services, we anticipated that the complexity of individual financial institutions’ situations, difficult market conditions and an unattractive disposal environment will combine to make the possibility of early government exit from their stakes in the private sector highly unlikely, perhaps taking five to seven years or more before governments are able to fully divest of their stakes and related guarantees.

In the interim, clear objectives and governance arrangements are needed to ensure governments act as good owners and manage carefully the potential conflicts arising from their distinct roles as owners/shareholders, acting on behalf of taxpayers, and supervisors/regulators, acting on behalf of consumers and businesses.

Credible debtors

With budget deficits rising in most economies, and with critics of government policy challenging the cost and effficiency of economic stimulus programmes in creating jobs amid estimates by some commentators of high costs per job created, governments are facing a conundrum – how to deal with ever more debt at a time when the needs of businesses and citizens for support are rising, with the economic downturn resulting in greater numbers of unemployed and disadvantaged people needing state assistance. The lesson from history is that a focus on efficiency is rarely enough to turn around major fiscal deficits – governments must transform their approach and seek radically new ways of doing things. There is a need to revisit the role of government, stop some activities, prioritise some areas over others and re-design service delivery if radical cuts are to be achieved.

Sustainable solutions require political will and ownership at the highest level. This will, in our view, entail a combination of tax rises and spending cuts, where the decisions on both are guided by the impacts on economic growth and social outcomes – progressive austerity is the order of the day. But, as any business or family household knows, balancing budgets still requires tough choices and a robust, evidence-based approach to prioritisation which balances the relative importance of government programmes with the ability of government to deliver.

Smarter, more collaborative regulators

The burden of regulation continues to grow in the eyes of CEOs – two thirds of CEOs do not believe governments have reduced their regulatory burdens – and business is also still seemingly unconvinced by government’s track record on achievement of its priorities on issues such as infrastructure, skills development and climate change.

Yet there is still a desire for collaboration to achieve a win:win for business and government when it comes to smartening regulation. This is particularly critical at the current point in the economic cycle when governments must beware of imposing regulations which stifle innovation, competitiveness and the growth of jobs – the call from business this year is for a combination of less regulation in areas which stifle competitiveness (like access to capital) and better enforcement of existing regulations in other areas (such as financial sector stability).


This year, we went further and asked CEOs and government officials how best to achieve the goal of smarter regulation. The clear response was for dialogue and closer working between business and government – co-design.

Clearly, achieving a smarter approach to regulation nationally is a challenge – whether this can be achieved globally is even more open to question. Whilst harmonisation of regulatory approaches and increased collaboration is in vogue, with a desire expressed by both business and government for a more systemic approach to tackling global risks, we have found little desire amongst business or government for new supranational regulatory institutions.

There is no doubt that much stronger global governance is needed to safeguard the fundamentals of the world economy. The G20 is evidently seen by CEOs as the key forum for collaboration, although whether it has the capacity and cohesiveness to make a real difference is as yet untested, with a number of the reforms proposed at recent meetings yet to be fully followed through. As such, we believe that more needs to be done to strengthen its capacity for effective decision-making and follow-through by reforming the supporting infrastructure, including global organisations such as the IMF and the World Bank.

Final thoughts: Governments as intelligent investors

Business concern is currently focusing, rightly, on protracted recession. However, CEOs and governments around the world need to look forward. Governments must act as intelligent investors: for growth to take off, governments at all levels must invest strategically and sustainably in the various ‘capitals’ needed by any society for long-term prosperity, with the priority being projects with a high social and economic return, which will assist private sector wealth creation, particularly in infrastructure. Equally, governments should be wary of cutting investment plans to balance the books – this will not solve structural fiscal deficits, and will only serve to solve today’s problem at the expense of creating new ones for tomorrow.

Most importantly, governments must continue to re-build confidence and public trust, reduce uncertainty further through intelligent and authentic leadership and vision and create policies and mechanisms for collaboration that are appropriate for today’s global flows of capital. Public sector leaders must shift gear, from being reactive to events to being both proactive and interactive, with business and society. Governments must seize the opportunity to chart a way ahead, investing in the future as the global economy takes off towards growth.


1 Brazil, Russia, India and China

Light at the end of the tunnel

Business confidence is critical to economic recovery given the impacts on investment and jobs, so the views of CEOs are perhaps of greater interest to government now than for many years. We were therefore heartened to find that CEOs were more confident in this year’s Survey but nonetheless cautious about revenue prospects (Figure 1): overall, 81% of CEOs show some measure of confidence – responding ‘somewhat confident’ or ‘very confident’ – on revenue growth prospects over the next 12 months, with almost a third (31%) of CEOs ‘very confident’, in line with expectations for a moderate recovery. While CEOs are somewhat more confident in their company’s ability to generate revenue growth in the near-term, they are decidedly more confident over the longer-term, defined as a three-year time horizon.

So, there is light at the end of the tunnel. The majority (72%) of CEOs anticipate recovery for their industry before the end of 2010 with CEOs from all industry sectors expecting to recover within a similar timeframe, even financial services (Figure 2). Recovery for countries is also expected before the end of 2010, but fewer CEOs (13%) believe that recovery has already set in and 60% expect national economic recoveries only in the second half of 2010 or later. Almost half (44%) of CEOs in BRIC1 countries believe their countries have already experienced recovery. Recovery in G8 nations is expected to take longer.

Global recovery, global risks

PwC’s 13th Annual Global CEO Survey occurred as the global economy began to recover, with many countries past the worst of the recession. However, whilst confidence is returning there is also a heightened awareness of risks, as identified both by the 1,198 business leaders worldwide surveyed as well as through our discussions with a selection of government leaders.

Confidence returns

01

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% S

tatin

g ve

ry c

onfid

ent

2010200920082007200620052004

12 months 3 years

Ref: Q1a and Q1b. How would you assess your level of confidence in prospects for the revenue growth of your company over the next 12 months and 3 years? Yearly comparison. Base: All respondents (2009 = 1,198; 2008 = 1,124; 2007= 1,150; 2006 =1,084; 2004 = 1,324; 2003 = 1,386).


0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Already recovered orrecovery expected before

the end of 2009



In 2011

Don’t know/Refused

23

13

18

21

31

31

24

29

5

5

Industry Nation’s Economy

Expectations of recovery for industries and countries

02

Ref: Q1c. When do you expect recovery to set in for your industry? Q1d. When do you expect recovery to set in for your nations’s economy? Base: All respondents (1,198) N.B. Recovery is defined as stable and steady economic growth.



Size and place count

Confidence and recovery expectations are tied to geography – where the CEO is based – and the size of the company. A distinctive split emerged between CEOs based in the G8 developed economies and those based in the other members of the G20, including faster-growing China, India and Brazil. CEOs in the developed economies were far more cautious on near-term revenue prospects, with 23% ‘very confident’ versus 42% of CEOs in newer member G20 nations. BRIC companies are by far the most optimistic over the short and longer-term, whilst CEOs in G8 countries have the lowest degree of confidence, particularly over the short-term. The highest levels of confidence also emerge from CEOs from the largest firms (defined as having revenue of over $10 billion a year).

Two-speed recovery

A majority of CEOs also expect recovery to set in for their industries by the second half of 2010. But CEOs believe recovery for G8 nations is likely to occur much later than in the other G20 countries and non-G20 countries: 54% of CEOs based in the wider G20 group of nations expect recovery to set in by the first half of 2010 compared to 26% of CEOs in the G8 nations. For instance, China’s growth accelerated over the course of 2009 and is likely to exceed the government’s target of 8% according to IMF estimates. In comparison, the output of developed economies is projected to have declined by 3.4% in 20092. This reflects economic reality and is re-inforced by the views from our government interviews where Asia is seen as a particular growth engine.

Yet we’re all more worried now

Notwithstanding the return of confidence, particularly in the longer term, CEOs have a whole host of concerns which they believe are a threat to their growth prospects (Figure 3). For all CEOs, there is a level of unease with the broader forces underpinning the relative strength of recoveries around the world. They are more concerned about a number of external threats to business growth than they were in the previous year’s survey as many pull away from survival mode and a singular focus on the crisis.

The top three business risks this year are also top of the agenda for many governments:

Protracted global recession, where almost two thirds •(65%) of CEOs are extremely or somewhat concerned especially in Asia-Pacific (77%); indeed many of our government interviewees like Shelly Jamieson, Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Ontario Public Service in Canada expect a ‘slow spring’ believing the worst is behind us but expecting a gradual recovery to moderate growth.

Over-regulation, with the highest number of CEOs •extremely concerned (27%, compared with 18% last year) for any risk and especially in Latin America (75%), perhaps fearing a government reaction to perceived failings by business leading to global recession.

Lack of stability in capital markets, with 59% of CEOs •somewhat or extremely concerned, especially in Asia Pacific (66%). This is again mirrored by our government interviewees who were worried about the continuing volatility of capital flows (and access to capital) and the possibility of as yet unseen problems emerging in the banking sector.

CEOs from the G20 economies outside the G8 are also the most aware of threats to business growth prospects; they are more concerned about over-regulation, low-cost competition, currency volatility and energy costs. This year’s Survey also, for the first time, has separate analysis for Africa which reveals that CEOs in this continent are most concerned about energy costs and the availability of skills (80% somewhat or extremely concerned about both of these threats) closely followed by the inadequacy of basic infrastructure (78%).

2 IMF “October World Economic Outlook (WEO),” released 1 October, 2009. (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/RES100109A.htm)


pwc.com/ceowsurvey

The rise of protectionism?

There is also a significant increase in concerns about the rise of protectionism (Figure 4), with 49% of CEOs somewhat or very concerned about governments’ protectionist tendencies (up from 39% last year). This is especially the case in Latin America, where protectionism is second only behind over-regulation (70% compared with 75%), and across the BRIC economies (63% of CEOs somewhat or extremely concerned). In Latin America several countries adopted measures to increase tariff barriers on certain imports as the crisis unfolded, but this trend is rising across all regions.

However, alarmist scenarios of protectionist trade barriers largely failed to materialise in 2009: the World Trade Organisation (WTO) noted in its annual report released in November that whilst there has been slippage on trade policy in most of the G20 countries, “the world economy

is about as open for trade today as it was before the crisis started.” At most, post-crisis trade restrictions should amount to 1% of world merchandise trade, it said3.

Other significant increases in concerns featured climate change (though less so for North America), pandemics and other health crises – again of concern to governments. Indeed our government interviewees cited further specific concerns over environmental and natural resource degradation and depletion, air and water pollution, commodity price pressure and increasingly volatile weather patterns.

Environmental degradation and the negative effects of climate change have worsened and could become even more pronounced in the coming years. Economic growth is necessary for poverty reduction… However, economic growth must also be environmentally sustainable.

Haruhiko Kuroda President, Asian Development Bank

3 Overview of developments in the international trading environment”, Part A, Annual Report by the WTO Director-General. (http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news09_e/wt_tpr_ov_12_a_e.doc)

0%

Don’t Know/Refused

Protracted global recession -6 2342-29 0

Over-regulation -12 2733-27 1

Lack of stability in capital markets -9 1643-32 1

Exchange rate volatility -15 2335-27 0

Low-cost competition -14 2331-31 0

Energy costs -17 1935-29 1

Macroeconomic imbalances (e.g. trade or fiscal) -10 1440-35 1

Availability of key skills -15 1635-34 1

Protectionist tendencies of national governments -20 1732-30 1

Permanent shift in consumer spending and behaviours -17 1633-34 1


Potential threats to business prospects

03

Ref: Q3a and Q3b. How concerned are you about the following potential threats to your business growth prospects? Base: All respondents (1,198).



Note: Comparison of concerns only maps concerns that were asked in both 2008 and 2009.Base: 2009 (1,198) 2008 (1,124).

Threats to revenue growth – Percentage change 09/10

04

Clearly, these global risks cannot be solved, or ameliorated, by businesses or governments on their own. But who should take the lead? CEOs have nuanced views on the role of government: nothwithstanding the critical role of government in avoiding recession turning into full blown depression, the views of CEOs vary significantly on the role of government and its success in delivering on some of their fundamental requirements (Figure 5).

In general, CEOs perceive a lack of progress by government in many areas. There is a significant increase from last year’s Survey in the negative perceptions of CEOs on the success of government intervention with regards to the environment, access to natural resources, availability of skills and the

regulatory burden. CEOs are seeking concise and clear direction from governments on long-term environmental policies but do not think governments are delivering these policies (55%) or protecting biodiversity and ecosystems (45%). A majority (56%), again this year, say governments should drive convergence of global tax and regulatory frameworks but fear that governments are under pressure to raise more tax from them (47%), especially in the Americas. CEO views are also split on whether government is delivering basic infrastructure (Box 1) and are not convinced that the bedrock of a skilled workforce (57%) or access to natural resources (49%) is being delivered.

The evolving relationship between business and government

2010 2009 % change 09/10

% concerned % concerned

Over-regulation 60 55 +5%

Protectionist tendencies of national governments 49 39 +10%

Inflation 40 49 -9%

Energy costs 53 50 +3%

Low cost competition 54 48 +6%

Availability of key skills 51 46 +5%

Climate change 37 26 +11%

Scarcity of natural resources 35 30 +5%

Security of the supply chain 34 33 +1%

Pandemics and other health crises 35 18 +17%

Terrorism 30 21 +9%

Inadequacy of basis infrastructure 33 25 +8%

Increase of 10% or more Increase of 1% -9% No change or decrease


0%

2010

2009

The government should drive convergence ofglobal tax and regulatory frameworks

The government is changing its tax rules andpractices to raise more tax from business

The government is working to improvehealthcare access at lower cost

The government has clear and consistentlong-term environment policies

The government effectively protectsbiodiversity and ecosystems

The government has been effective in helpingcreate a skilled workforce

The government helps companies secure accessto natural resources (e.g. raw materials, water, energy)

The government has reduced the regulatoryburden on corporations

The government is taking adequate steps toimprove the country’s infrastructure

(e.g. electricity, water supply, transport)

Disagree strongly Disagree Agree Agree strongly


-7 18-1319 39-14 1442-8

-25 1227-10-24 1829-8

-13 10-25 31-25 733-14

-32 426-14

-33 820-15-35 421-20

32 223-12

-33 118-16

-36 217-21

-31 20 3-15

-34 14-33

-34 419-14

2-32 18-25 3

The changing role of government

05

Ref: Q16. Thinking about the role of Government in the country in which you operate, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Base: All respondents (2009 = 1,198; 2008 = 1,124).



There are also strong national differences of view on the effectiveness to date of governments addressing CEOs’ long term priorities (see Table 1). CEOs in China/Hong Kong are the most positive about the role of government interventions, with a majority believing that government is taking adequate steps to improve the country’s infrastructure (87%), improve healthcare access at lower cost (72%), providing clear and consistent long-term environmental policies (62%), protecting biodiversity and ecosystems (53%) and creating a skilled workforce (52%). However, the only other case where a majority of CEOs believe government has been effective is in the provision of infrastructure – in Korea (63%) and Germany (54%).

On the other hand, there is relative disdain from CEOs for government’s ability to create a skilled workforce in US, Spain, Italy, Korea, Mexico and Brazil with 10% or less of CEOs in these countries believing that government has been effective in helping create a skilled workforce. In addition, in the US a staggering 89% of CEOs believe their government is changing its tax rules and practice to raise more tax, along with UK (78%), Spain (76%) as well as a majority in Brazil (67%), Mexico (67%) and Russia (57%). Yet, apart from China, Korea and the UK, a majority of CEOs believe government should drive the convergence of global tax and regulatory frameworks.

Overall, these mixed reseponses suggest a range of areas where government policy-makers and businesses can more effectively collaborate to stimulate economic growth.

Infrastructure in many countries is reaching its natural lifespan and is in need of replacement but there is increasingly a lack of public money. Raising taxes is becoming difficult and unattractive given budget deficits which are already requiring increases in corporate and personal income taxes across countries. The private sector has also become more risk averse and is struggling to raise private funds for infrastructure development in the current economic climate.

Governments need to re-start the market for infrastructure development by creating new incentives to the private sector given the risks involved in the current climate. Some examples include offering termination fees to protect businesses against failure of projects, which may re-kindle interest in markets such as the US, and offering a guarantee of a minimum rate of return (or return on

investment floor) commensurate with the risks of a project. Further action also needs to be taken to include maintenance as part of public-private infrastructure contracts to extend the life and quality of assets.

One innovative option to overcome delays in financing Public Private Partnerships is being tried in South America where the Costa Rican government is creating a trust to receive funding from a private sector investor to essentially purchase – and own – a water treatment facility for a period of 20 years, during which time the trust would lease the facility back to the government. At the end of the 20-year period, ownership would revert back to the government of Costa Rica. The government of Costa Rica is therefore able to obtain financing for a period of 20 years at reasonable interest.

Box 1: Delivering infrastructure to meet business needs


Summing up

Clearly confidence is returning as are expectations of recovery within the next 12 months. But there are still risks – of protracted recession or slow recovery, of over-regulation and of unstable capital markets as well as fears, as yet unfounded, of a wave of protectionism.

This raises some important and uncomfortable issues for government, particularly against mixed views of CEOs on their ability to rise to these challenges. In particular:

What are the implications of governments becoming •owners of businesses ranging from financial services to automotive?

What gaps in public risk management have been exposed •by the financial crisis, particularly given the need to understand better the intricacies, complexities and interconnections of the financial system, and address overlaps and loopholes in regulatory oversight? How can

there be a closer dialogue between regulators and the regulated – smart regulation – both nationally and internationally?

When will governments have to exit from their •accommodative fiscal and monetary policies which were necessary to overcome the very real threat of depression and deflation, but which if left loose too long will stoke inflation? And what actions need to be put in place to deal with debt?

We look in turn at these issues in the remaining sections of this report.

Role of government

TABLE 01

Ref: Q16. Thinking about the role of Government in the country in which you operate, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Respondents who stated ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ Base: All respondents (base in brackets).


Global USA Canada Spain Germany UK Netherlands France Italy China/HK Japan Korea India Australia Russia Mexico Brazil (1198) (100) (39) (34) (63) (64) (30) (44) (38) (60) (75) (30) (30) (30) (30) (30) (30)

The government should drive convergence of global tax 56% 50% 51% 68% 75% 36% 60% 61% 61% 43% 55% 33% 73% 60% 67% 73% 77% and regulatory frameworks

The government is changing its tax rules and practices to raise 47% 89% 21% 76% 43% 78% 23% 25% 13% 30% 31% 20% 30% 43% 57% 67% 67% more tax from business

The government is taking adequate steps to improve the country’s 40% 27% 49% 21% 54% 13% 37% 39% 24% 87% 20% 63% 27% 33% 13% 27% 30% infrastructure

The government is working to improve health care 30% 34% 31% 21% 27% 20% 20% 14% 18% 72% 16% 30% 20% 7% 30% 47% 3% access at lower cost

The government has clear and consistent long-term 25% 13% 31% 9% 27% 22% 23% 30% 8% 62% 23% 23% 17% 27% 10% 13% 0% environmental policies

The government effectively protects biodiversity 25% 32% 31% 29% 30% 13% 37% 11% 8% 53% 12% 13% 13% 27% 3% 13% 3% and ecosystems

The government helps companies secure access to natural 19% 8% 21% 6% 19% 8% 13% 9% 18% 38% 32% 40% 7% 23% 10% 23% 3% resources

The government has been effective in helping create a skilled 19% 3% 28% 3% 19% 19% 37% 27% 0% 52% 8% 3% 33% 30% 13% 7% 10% workforce


So, how is the landscape changing for business? Have those CEOs with the backing of government developed different views from CEOs with an exclusively private boardroom? And what are the implications for government?

A changing landscape for business

New government influence over the global business environment in 2009 was nowhere so clearly marked as in the increase in ownership in companies. A third of all companies said the government owns a stake in a major player in their industry, rising to 43% amongst companies with revenue over $10 billion. The change is most pronounced in financial services, where 56% of CEOs said the government held stakes in a major player in their country which is second only to utilities (71%).

Government’s new reach in 2009 is changing the debate on government ownership in the private sector. Almost half (49%) of CEOs were positive towards government taking an ownership role in times of crisis, including those in North America, whose dissatisfaction with most issues involving government measures to improve business conditions were well marked elsewhere in the Survey. This sentiment was more strongly backed amongst business leaders in Asia-Pacific (61%) and the Middle East (54%), and decidedly less so amongst CEOs in Latin America (34%), Africa (40%) and Central/Eastern Europe (41%). Within Europe, where CEOs largely agree that government ownership in a time of crisis is a stabilising force, the most support came from French CEOs (68%) and the least from Italian CEOs (37%). Amongst industries, only a third (31%) of insurers considered short term ownership a stabilising force in times of crisis, against 56% of auto CEOs and 55% of banking and capital markets CEOs.

Popular support for government ownership in the post-crisis environment also appears to be holding in some polls. A GlobeScan/University of Maryland poll in 2009 of adults in 27 countries said a majority called for less active government ownership or control in just four of the countries4. This suggests an exit strategy may not be as fast as free-marketers might desire. Indeed, given the range of experiences with public ownership in countries where the crisis was more muted, from East Asia to the Middle East and Latin America, state ownership is likely to endure for some time in one form or another.

The harmony between government and business ends for CEOs, however, on the implications of longer-term public ownership of businesses. Non-government backed CEOs perceive negative implications of government ownership across the board, particularly those based in North America (Figure 6). More than two-thirds of all CEOs agree that government ownership distorts competition, leads to political interference and creates a conflict of interest with its regulatory role, rising to over 80% across all of these categories in North America.

Government as strategic game-changer?

Last year’s Survey revealed what we thought at the time was a startling statistic – 10% of the companies we surveyed had some form of government ownership or backing spread across all of the industry groups we surveyed. This year, there has been a further and significant increase in the proportion of our sample of CEOs with some form of government backing – up to 14%. CEOs are coming to realise that they face a new reality in the future, a global environment marked by governments as owners, regulators, customers and competitors, to different degrees in different markets.

It is the duty of a government to ensure that whatever measure it takes to support the economy, that measure be as precisely targeted to the intended goal as possible, with as little collateral damage as possible.

Normand Bergeron Président-directeur général de l’Agence des partenariats public-privé du Québec, Canada

4 Survey of 29,033 adult citizens across 27 countries, conducted for BBC World Service by the GlobeScan, together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. (http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbc2009_berlin_wall/)


0%


Government ownership will lead topolitical interference in the marketplace

Government ownership inherently creates a conflictof interest with its regulatory function

-4 2646-11 1

-3 2547-11 2

Government ownership distortscompetition in an industry

Government ownership influences regulationand enforcement in the industry

Government ownership discouragesthe entry of foreign competitors

Government ownership helps to stabilisean industry in times of crisis

-4 3041-12 2

-4 1850-11 2

-6 1537-23 2

-9 841-22 1

Neither/Nor

12

12

12

15

17

17


0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Government ownership will lead to political interference

in the marketplace

Government ownership inherentlycreates a conflict of interest with its

regulatory function

Government ownership distortscompetition in an industry

Government ownership discouragesthe entry of foreign competitors

Government ownership helpsto stabilise an industry in

times of crisis

53

75

53

76

51

74

60

69

5538

48

64

Government Owned/Backed Non Government Owned/Backed

Government ownership influencesregulation and enforcement in

the industry

Views on government ownership

06

Views of government-backed companies on government ownership

07

Ref: Q17b. How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about Government ownership? Base: All respondents (1,198).


Ref: Q17b. How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about Government ownership? Respondents who stated ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ Base: All respondents (166, 1,013).

Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers 13th Annual Global CEO Survey 20100% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100




Organisational structure(including M&A)

Focus on corporate reputationand rebuilding trust

Capital structure

Engagement with yourboard of directors

89

84

84

81

79

78

83

81

65

73

75

77

59

73

55

63


Responding to changing consumerpuchasing behavious

Government-Owned companies’ strategies

08

Ref: Q7. In the wake of the economic crisis, to what extent do you anticipate changes to any of the following areas of your company’s strategy, organisation or operating model? Respondents who stated ‘some change’ or ‘a major change’ Significant at 95% confidence interval. Base: All respondents (166, 1,013)


Even those that are experiencing government ownership have negative perceptions (Figure 7), although slightly less so with the results suggesting that experience of government involvement reduces concerns about interference, conflicts of interest and competitive distortions (though there is still a majority of CEOs in state-backed companies who have these concerns in all cases).

A two-headed monster?

But does government ownership make such a difference to the views of CEOs on a range of issues? From those with experience it appears not – in general, the views of government-backed CEOs mirror those of their private sector counterparts. For instance, like their private sector counterparts, CEOs with some form of government backing are more confident in their short and long term prospects. They also perceive the same threats to their businesses – protracted recession, over-regulation and unstable capital markets – although they are significantly more worried about energy costs (63% compared to 52%) and inflation (47% compared to 39%). Recession barely dents their momentum with climate change strategies.

There are, however, some important differences for CEOs with some form of government involvement. There is some indication from our results that government stakes provide a cloak under which to take urgent actions e.g. making more organisational changes and capital re-structuring, whilst also enabling those companies to take a longer term view on areas such as capital investments, learning and development and preparing for risks (scenario planning):

Government-Owned companies appear to be making •more changes to their strategy, particularly focusing on corporate reputation and re-building trust as well as capital structures. There also appears to be somewhat more engagement between Boards and their executives in state-backed organisations (Figure 8).

Almost half (48%) of state-backed CEOs are planning •moderate or significant increases in their long-term capital investments (Figure 9).

Government-Owned companies are also more likely to be •planning for systemic risk and high risk/low probability events, with a majority of state-backed CEOs (57%) making preparations (Figure 10).

Ref: Q10. With respect to your approach to risk management, to what extent are you increasing your focus in the following areas as a result of the economic crisis? Respondents who stated ‘to a large extent or ‘significantly’ Significant at 95% confidence interval. Base: All respondents (166, 1,013)

0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Integrating risk managementcapabilities into business units

Reassessing your tolerance for risk

Collaborating with supply chainpartners to collectively manage risks

Preparing for systemic risk and low-probability, high impact events

Allocating resources to risk-relatedinformation gathering and analysis

63

57

57

52

52

50

55

49

45

57

48

54


Creating personal accountability andreward structures for good risk

management, including risk taking

Approach to risk management

10

0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Initiatives to realise cost efficiencies

Leadership and talent development


Advertising and brand-building

R&D and new product innovation

Capital investments

81

78

71

69

64

64

64

59

57

60

42

41

39

48


Strategic technology infrastructureor applications

Ref: Q8. How do you plan to change your long-term investment decisions in the following areas over the next 3 years as a result of the economic crisis? Significant at 95% confidence interval. Base: All respondents (166, 1,013)


09


Non Government-Owned companies have made greater •headcount reductions, although the differences reduce looking ahead with both types of business planning similar approaches in the next 12 months (Figure 11).

In addition, state-backed CEOs are slightly more likely to •be changing their approach to staff morale and employee engagement programmes and collaboration with networks of external specialists (Figure 12).

To own or not to own

The concerns stated around political interference and the impact of government ownership on competition clearly necessitates transparent consideration by governments on how active and long-term state investments in business should be and their associated exit strategies.

There has been an expectation by many commentators of early exits of government stakes in business. Some governments, however, may want to stay longer and use their stakes to help shape markets e.g. on the sustainability agenda in the energy and auto sectors, although there are risks that ownership is less effective than other tools to achieve such policy outcomes.

0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Managing people through change(e.g. redefining roles in organisation)

Traning and development programmes

Staff morale and employeeengagement programmes

Collaborations with networksof external specialists

Flexible workingenvironments

Global mobility, including staff travelor international secondments

Pension and healthcarearrangements

81

79

80

77

80

75

64

61

59

63

57

63

56

55

41

42


Remuneration levels

Ref: Q15. Regarding your people strategy, to what extent will you change your approaches to the following areas, as a consequence of the economic crisis? Respondents who stated ‘changing somewhat’, ‘changing to a large extent’ or ‘changing significantly’ Base: All respondents (166, 1,013)

0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Decrease

Stay the same

Increase by less than 5%

Increase by more than 8%

Dont’t know/refused

39

50

30

21

16

12

5

7

9

11

1


Increase by 5-8%

Headcount reductions

11

Ref: Q14a.What happened to headcount in your organisation globally over the past 12 months?

Significant at 95% confidence interval. Base: All respondents (1,198) N.B. Recovery is defined as stable and steady economic growth.

Approaches to people strategy

12


Activism not interference

Governments as owners can take a longer-term approach. In our view, the optimal role for government is to take the role of an activist investor, acting as a ‘critical friend’ by engaging and challenging the boards of state-supported businesses on their strategy and encouraging a longer-term approach to business. They should not, however, interfere in day-to-day operation – such businesses should be run in the same way, with the same attention to best practice, as any other business.

This needs to be done in the context of an appropriate governance structure, which recognises the unique involvement of government and where the roles of all players are clear – boards, management, government and other shareholders. For example, the UK’s Shareholder Executive applies four principles when working with management teams of government-owned businesses: clarity, value, transparency and professionalism.

Managing conflicts of interest

Governments need to manage carefully the conflicts arising from their distinct roles as owners/shareholders, acting on behalf of taxpayers, and supervisors/regulators, acting on behalf of consumers and businesses. Where government ownership, in some cases through sovereign wealth funds, is partial as opposed to full, governments need to be particularly transparent on the extent of their backing for business: this is needed for markets to assess the riskiness or otherwise of business ventures, as demonstrated by the highly publicised case of Dubai World and the concerns about the level of backing it eventually received from government.

The presence of government intervention can also create market distortions for example by creating differences in employers’ costs of capital, impacting remuneration structures and creating unfair competition through state guarantees. Governments must ensure that, where they are not full owners, they do not use their shareholdings to abuse the rights of minority shareholders. Governments also need to guard against getting involved in operational decisions and using their (temporary) ownership of business inappropriately as a tool of activist business policy, with the resulting accusations of political meddling.

Maximising economic and social returns

There is an important distinction between maximising shareholder value within a context that is supportive to wider economic and social goals and using government ownership of business as a substitute for more appropriate policy mechanisms to achieve those social objectives. Whilst in government ownership (in part or in full), the focus should be on developing and implementing a strategic plan to maximise the return, both financial (to shareholders) and economic/social (to the wider economy and society), from their forced investments. In our view, an activist government’s exit strategy should aim to achieve an economic and social return on investment (SROI) as well as a financial one. For example, in the case of State Supported Banks by increasing lending levels to maintain economic activity at a higher level than would otherwise be the case. SROI, however, should not be used as a cover for politically expedient sales of shares at a low price or indeed state support of companies doomed to fail.

Box 2: Being a good owner


There is also an issue of who buys the former government stakes and their strategies and motives. Government ownership of business needs case-by-case consideration as different countries have different experiences and heritages of state involvement. In general, however, CEOs and our government interviewees appear to believe that for most sectors state ownership should be a last resort and a temporary, not permanent, solution.

Nevertheless, whether it is ideologically or economically driven, governments will still retain some stakes in businesses for the foreseeable future. For instance, in our report ‘Back to the Future’, which focused on the relationship between government and financial services, we anticipated that the complexity of individual financial institutions’ situations, difficult market conditions and an unattractive disposal environment will combine to make the possibility of early government exit from their stakes in the private sector highly unlikely. “It will take two to three years to sell major holdings, but five to seven years or more before governments are able to fully divest of their stakes and related guarantees.”

Given that temporary state ownership will stretch into the medium term, governments should not therefore waste this opportunity for reform. They must clearly define their objectives, take a positive role and seek to be ‘good owners’ (Box 2). Our research5 shows that this involves addressing three key elements: managing conflicts of interest; taking an ‘activist’ role; and focusing on the wider returns of ownership to society. There is also clearly a need for transparency when government has a stake in businesses and for governance procedures to be put in place to ensure that neither customers nor minority shareholders lose out from government intervention.

Summing up

It is clear that CEOs have significant concerns about long term state involvement in business with important implications for government policies on competition and fair markets. Despite the antipathy of most CEOs to state ownership, including a majority of CEOs with government backing, there are also times when government intervention is necessary to stabilise industries, as CEOs also on balance agree.

As such, the challenge for government is to make decisions on how long they will retain their stakes in business and, for those that it is decided should return to the private sector, set out their exit strategy alongside a challenging but realistic timetable. In the interim, clear objectives and governance arrangements are also needed to ensure governments act as good owners and manage carefully the potential conflicts arising from their distinct roles as owners/shareholders, acting on behalf of taxpayers, and supervisors/regulators, acting on behalf of consumers and businesses.

5 See ‘Back to the Future’ for a full discussion of these issues in the financial services industry

The basic lesson is that the state should withdraw from private business because it is still true that the private sector makes significantly better decisions than the state… I think that it is necessary to support structural changes, more market economics, better environment for business, healthy state finances, less protectionism. These are the things that should be done.

Martin Tlapa Deputy Minister, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Czech Republic


This year, as well as taking the temperature of the relationship between business and government on regulation, we tested to see what CEOs want most from government, how regulation can be made smarter and in what areas.

Is the burden of regulation still rising?

Over-regulation remains a perennial concern in our Survey, having been a top three issue for a decade. This year over-regulation moved back to the second spot, with a significant increase over last year in those ‘extremely concerned’ about it (up to 27% from 18%).

CEOs are clearly concerned that they will face a backlash as governments seek to regulate more in order to curb perceived excesses in private markets. That a near financial collapse could presage a wave of regulation could be expected to trouble CEOs facing weak demand.

CEOs have also been clear in prior years that a significant issue for them is the compliance burden. Overall, two thirds (67%) of CEOs do not believe that government has reduced the regulatory burden on corporations, a rise from 57% last year. Indeed, this year only in Japan is there a positive balance of CEOs believing that their government has reduced the regulatory burden7 , and even here by a much reduced proportion and on a downward trend (Table 2, where negative numbers indicate that those CEOs agreeing that regulatory burdens are falling are outweighed by those disagreeing). CEOs in US, Brazil and UK lead the way in their view that the regulatory burden has not been lifted.

The smarter, more collaborative regulator

Over-regulation and concerns about regulatory over-reach have risen again this year and yet CEOs are also convinced of the need for the involvement of government to mitigate systemic risks. In past issues of this report, we have commented on this ‘regulatory paradox’ - on the one hand, CEOs want more government leadership and action in some areas e.g. on climate change6 and driving the convergence of global tax and regulatory, whilst on the other hand CEOs are inclined to believe government action is only good when it helps their business and bad otherwise.

The public’s disillusionment has moved beyond the banks to the private sector in general, so that governments are now talking about more regulation to stop a similar crisis from ever happening again. But hasty regulation will be bad regulation and my concern is that creativity, innovation, and enterprise will be stifled at a time when they should be encouraged.

Paul Walsh CEO, Diageo

6 For further CEO views on climate change, see PwC’s forthcoming publication ‘Appetite for Change: Global business perspectives on tax and regulation for a low carbon economy’ 7 Excludes those who neither agree nor disagree and those who don’t know or refused to answer


I don’t think business will be all that accepting of a lot more regulation. But I think it will be accepting of more effective regulation… The key is to establish non- ideological consultation and collaboration between the government and the private sector. The private sector must recognise that the government has legitimate aims in bringing about certain social outcomes. And those social outcomes should be of concern to businesses, too. At the same time, the government shouldn’t play a larger or more prescriptive role than it has to.

Robert Bhatia Deputy Minister of Alberta Seniors and Community Supports, Canada

CEOs’ views of the regulatory burden

TABLE 02

Balance of CEOs who agree (strongly or slightly) as against disagree (slightly or strongly) that the government in which their business is headquartered has reduced the regulatory burden on corporations (%)

The paradox is that whilst CEOs criticise the actions of governments and perceive ever increasing regulatory burdens, they are also ever more keen to collaborate with them. CEOs are not waiting for new regulation but are stepping up their involvement to help to shape it. They are prioritising cooperation with regulators as they seek to rebuild trust in their industries (Figure 13). For example, nearly two thirds of CEOs (63%) plan to initiate, or have already done so, a proactive dialogue with policy-makers and regulators to increase levels of trust, especially in North America (74%) and Africa (79%), and sectorally in financial services (76%).

0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Participation in industry initiatives to improve the sector’s reputation

Proactive dialogue withpolicy-makers and regulators

A systematic approach tomeasuring and managing reputation

Expansion of your corporateresponsibility programme

Media relations programmeand advertising

Changing executivecompensation practices

None of the above


Revisions to reportingand engagement with

investor communityEngagement with NGOs

to improve practices thataffect your reputation

64

63

51

50

49

37

31

30

3

1

Views of those experiencing a decline in the public trust

13

Ref: Q12b. Which, if any, of the following activities have you initiated or are you planing to initiate in your own company as a result of the decline in trust? Base: Respondents who stated there has been a slight or significant fall in public trust in their industry at Q12a (304)

Country 2008 2009 2010

Global -39 -36 -52

US -58 -59 -90

Canada -57 -34 -54

Mexico N/A -50 -70

UK -87 -68 -85

France -54 -35 -71

Germany -64 -49 -62

Netherlands -77 -50 -70

Italy -78 -48 -58

Spain -52 -47 -67

Russia -44 -47 -57

Brazil -73 -57 -90

China and Hong Kong 6 0 -8

Japan 35 18 6

India 20 -40 -60

Australia -69 -67 -76

Korea -44 20 -7


What does smart regulation mean to business?

So, what can government do to reverse this significant deterioration in perception on a rising tide of regulatory burden? In last year’s report8, we set out our views on the need for a smarter approach to regulation (Box 3).

Many of the principles of better regulation are well known: regulation needs to be proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted. Yet last year we found there was a missing ingredient – stability – and a rapidly changing context – globalisation – as well as a renewed purpose – to stop players in markets behaving irresponsibly.

In our view, the key principles underpinning a smarter approach to regulation are as follows:

‘Think global, act local’ – define the right rules to •underpin success in a modern global economy, tailored to the national and local context;

Fair reciprocity – it is not enough to define a •transparent set of rules, but to implement them in a fair and reciprocal way;

Outcome-based – focus on outcomes, not purely •process, and make judgements on results, not just box-ticking; and

Clarity and stability – ensure that the rules for •regulation are clear and not subject to constant tinkering and change for change’s sake.

Box 3: Smart regulation

This year, we went on to ask CEOs for their views on the actions that could most impact a smarter approach to regulation (Figure 14). This revealed that whilst there is overwhelming concern that the regulatory burden is rising, a majority of CEOs (59%) believe the key to smarter regulation is for government to collaborate more closely with the private sector, particularly in Africa (70%). This approach – of co-design – may mirror CEOs desire to work more closely with their customers. Elsewhere in the Survey we found that 60% of CEOs expect consumers to play a more active role in product and service development. In this sense, why should government and business not work in a similarly collaborative fashion? The desired result would achieve governments’ desired outcomes but minimise the cost of compliance.

8 ‘Redefining Success: Government and the Global CEO – Runway to Growth’, PSRC March 2009

Smartening policy-setting and regulation

14

0%

Work more closely with the privatesector to maintain competitiveness

Ensure regulations areclear and stable

Work more closely with other nationsto harmonise regulations

Place more emphasis on fairlyenforcing existing regulations

Focus regulation on outcomes,not process

None of the above


Make the representation ofemerging economies in global

bodies more equitable

Empower multi-lateral organisationsto act as global regulators

59

57

45

39

32

21

15

0

2

Ref: Q19. In which of the following ways do you believe government could best improve the policy-setting process with regard to smarter business regulation? Base: All respondents (1,198) N.B. Respondents chose up to three of the seven possible options


CEOs also argue that regulation needs to be more supportive of business: the clearest call is to ensure that regulation is above all else clear and stable – 57% of CEOs want this, rising to nearly two thirds (65%) in North America. It is also worth noting that a slight majority of CEOs (51%) in the largest companies in our sample (over $10bn revenues) favoured closer working across borders to harmonise regulations, rather than giving more power to international regulators, a theme to which we will return in the next section.

Our government interviewees also expressed concerns about the need to address overlaps and loopholes in regulatory oversight and achieve closer dialogue between regulators and the regulated.

Are all regulations equally important?

Whilst there is a desire on both sides for regulators to work more closely with the private sector and for rules to be clear, consistent and stable e.g. on climate change, there are still varying business views by type of regulation.

Support from CEOs for new regulation is scattered and largely a minority view despite the evident lapses in the financial sector (Table 3). More CEOs are instead seeking either less regulation or better enforcement in areas where they perceive gaps in regulatory practices:

CEOs believe that some areas of regulation are priorities •for if not reducing then at least staying the same, primarily in areas which most impact their competitiveness: on innovation, access to both capital and foreign investment

opportunities and particularly on workforce practices (including pay) where 35% of CEOs want less regulation.

In other areas, CEOs favour better enforcement of existing •regulation: this particularly applies to financial sector stability, social and environmental sustainability, consumer protection rules and safeguarding intellectual property rights. For instance, CEOs favour better enforcement of existing regulation to ensure financial sector stability over less regulation by a factor of four.

Coordination minimises, if not eliminates, overlaps, improves synchronisation, and allows agencies to build upon competencies and learnings of the others.

Honorable (Hon.) Amando Tetangco Jr., Governor, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Philippines

So from our point of view the best road to regulation is through social dialogue.

Dr Juan Somavia Director-General, International Labour Organisation (ILO)

Changes desired to regulation

TABLE 03

Ref: Q18. Through what approach would you like to see regulation address each of the following areas? Base: All respondents (1,198).


More Better A different Less No change regulation enforcement of kind of regulation in (%) existing regulation regulation (%) regulation (%) (%) (%)

Financial sector stability 25 32 21 8 13

Innovation and competitiveness 12 16 19 32 18

Access to affordable capital 14 18 15 26 24

Access to foreign investment opportunities 9 14 13 32 29

Social and environmental sustainability 25 27 21 12 13

Protecting the interests of consumers and the public 20 29 16 12 21

Workforce practices, including compensation 8 16 18 35 21

Safeguarding intellectual property 26 31 11 7 22


This diagnosis by business of the nature and impact of regulation is significant – with governments under pressure to create jobs in the economy, there is a need for actions to reduce the negative impacts of regulation in areas which directly impact on the competitiveness of business whilst acting on behalf of consumers, employers and citizens to guarantee better societal outcomes.

So, how can better dialogue be achieved?

Our government interviewees were concerned about making sure that regulatory interventions are smart, flexible and judicious. There is also a strong feeling that public risk management needs to be strengthened along with system-wide (or macro-prudential) monitoring.

However, our government interviewees were also cognisant of the need to avoid excessively inhibiting innovation and place a higher priority on focusing on outcomes and specific objectives (particularly creating jobs and wealth whilst protecting the disadvantaged). In parallel, it is recognised that the processes to achieve these ends should not be overly prescriptive and that there is a preference for better enforcement of existing regulations rather than rafts of new ones, which is in line with the desires of CEOs.

Critically important in the minds of our government interviewees is the involvement of stakeholders through a proper dialogue on the practical issues of implementation and, where new regulation is needed, the importance of gradual, planned changeovers. The result in their view is a much better outcome: better informed stakeholders with a better appreciation of the rationale for regulation and so more likelihood of compliance.

Importantly, it is recognised that there is a need to engage better with Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs). Large companies have the resources to invest in engaging with government and regulators whereas smaller companies are less able to do so and also to absorb compliance costs. It was noted in our discussions that there is a role for better use of new technology to facilitate this dialogue. An interesting example quoted was in Canada where an e-risk registry has been created to enable public scrutiny of new regulations (see box 4), allied to a willingness to get rid of obsolete regulations e.g. though an Open for Business initiative. In many countries, there is also a drive to improve inter-agency co-ordination, as happens for instance in the Philippines where its financial regulators interact via its Financial Stability Forum.

It’s all about the ability or the art of developing regulations that achieve specific objectives but don’t go beyond what is needed because overregulation brings creativity and innovation to a halt… Regulation is needed to avoid falling into crisis again but it has to be applied wisely because too much regulation can literally fossilize the innovative side of the private sector. It has to be done but not over-done.

David Levine Président-directeur général de l’Agence de santé et de services sociaux de Montréal, Canada

Box 4: Using new technology in Ontario

Large corporate entities design ways to talk to government – it’s part of their DNA. But our economy is actually made up of small and medium sized businesses that don’t have that same capacity. They’re busy doing their work so you can’t put these people on committees and meet every month; you can’t waste their time. So you have to find ways to interact and perhaps there’s a role for technology in that, and there’s a way to be more inclusive. We do have a regulatory electronic registry for new regulations. So we actually post regulations for a 30-day period, and everybody can see them and can comment. It’s been very successful. It’s a very transparent way to say, ‘Look, this is what we’re thinking about doing’. It has allowed us to reach people I don’t think we would have reached otherwise.

Shelly Jamieson Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Ontario Public Service, Canada


Summing up

It seems that whilst business perceives further increases in the regulatory burden this year and, as we have seen earlier, is unconvinced by government’s track record on achievement of its priorities e.g. on environment, skills and climate change, there is a desire on both sides for collaboration to achieve a win:win for business and government when it comes to smartening regulation. This is particularly critical at the current point in the economic cycle when governments must beware of imposing regulation which stifles innovation, competitiveness and growth of jobs. Most CEOs and the government officials we interviewed believe that dialogue and closer working between business and government – co-design - is the best way to achieve smarter regulation.

Clearly, achieving a smarter approach to regulation nationally is a challenge – whether this can be achieved globally is even more open to question. There is, however, a recognition by our interviewees of the need for greater international cooperation and information sharing but some realism on the extent to which standardisation can occur, with a call for increasing harmonisation and alignment of approaches to allow for country differences in implementation. We discuss this further in the next section.

Regulations need to be dynamic and responsive to a changing economic environment. Dialogue is important. Dialogue between regulators and other stakeholders should therefore be continuing, cordial and comprehensive... We believe that the more informed stakeholders are, the better they are able to appreciate the rationale for regulations. In turn this makes regulation (and policy) more potent in effecting the desired results.


Many Asian governments consult quite widely with the private sector when considering new policies or strategies and that is, of course, absolutely correct. Input from the private sector is always quite useful. In the same vein, ADB can provide policy-makers with best practices and lessons learned from around Asia or even other regions of the world. In this way, ADB aspires to become a kind of knowledge bank that policy makers can draw upon.

Haruhiko Kuroda President, Asian Development Bank (ADB)


Is G20 the answer?

There is a clear shift perceived, by both CEOs and our government interviewees, in the geopolitical balance – the rise of G20 has been a symbol of a change in the world order. Most CEOs (78%) expect the G20 will become the dominant political and economic power (Figure 15).

CEOs are also increasingly confident that efforts by government and business can effectively confront global challenges like climate change, terrorism and financial crises. As noted earlier, they have long sought more cooperation amongst governments to harmonise tax and address other overlapping regulatory burdens that stem from running an international business operation. There is now an expectation from a majority of CEOs (57%, compared with 46% last year) that business and government efforts will be able to mitigate global risks like climate change, terrorism and financial crises.

This is a significant change to last year’s contrary set of views which may, perhaps, be borne of the experience of governments working together to avert the global financial crisis going into meltdown.

This is further supported by a confidence amongst two thirds of CEOs (65%) that regulatory co-operation among national governments will help successfully mitigate systemic risks such as economic crisis, particularly among CEOs in Asia Pacific (72%) and the Middle East (75%). A slightly lower proportion of CEOs (47%) expect this to extend to the harmonisation of new regulations although there is more pessimism in North America where only a third (34%) see this happening (Figure 16).

Strikingly, however, this trend to harmonisation stops short of calling for regulation by multilateral bodies, with a split view from CEOs on whether national regulators will give more authority to global or regional bodies and with CEOs in North America again more sceptical, only a quarter (25%) thinking that.

The outlook for policy harmonisation

Whilst the Great Recession has driven a more ‘hands-on’ economic policy-making approach in developed and emerging economies alike, the outlook for policy harmonisation amongst governments and the degree to which the hands-on approach will persist is of utmost importance in understanding the unfolding economic landscape. The global financial crisis has sharpened the recognition by CEOs that government has a key role in shaping responses to global risks, that markets cannot solve all problems and that intervention is needed. There is, however, less certainty on how this role is best deployed and by whom.


The rise of the G20

15

0% 0%

2010 2009

Governments wil become more protectionist

The pressure on natural resourceswill continue to increase

Within nations,the gap between richand poor people will increase

Government and business efforts will beunable to mitigate key global risks like

climate change, terrorism and financial crisis

Regulatory insight will remain primarily theremit of each nation’s own regulators despite

increased co-operation

The G20 will be the new dominant economicand political power in the world

The world will be more open to free international trade

Efficiency of resource usage will improve

Within nations,the gap between richand poor people will decrease

Government and business efforts will mitigate key global risks like climate change, terrorism and financial crisis

Multi-lateral organisations will increasinglyprovide oversight on regulatory issues suchas in financial services

The G20 nations will remain the dominanteconomic and political powers in the world

-65 32 -46 51

-60 38 -72 26

-78 19 -73 25

-68 28 -70 27

-39 57 -50 46

-55 42

Note: *G20 is full G20, including G8Base: All respondents (2009 = 1,198; 2008 = 1,124). Respondents chose a scenario from each pair, or the option ‘Don’t know/Refused’


Regulatory cooperation

16

Ref: Q20. How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about anticipated regulatory cooperation among national governments on new regulations? Base: All respondents (1,198).



2

Neither/Nor

17

223

423

0%

Regulatory cooperation will help successfully mitigate systemicrisks such as another economic crisis or climate change

National regulators will give more authority toglobal or regional bodies

New regulations will largely be harmonised because ofcooperation among governments


Neither/Nor highest in Asia Pacific and CEE

641

31 6-7 -31

-5

-3 -13

-22

53 12


As CEOs are less certain that multilateral organisations will supplant oversight by national regulators any time soon or that national government will empower multilateral organisations to act as global regulators, this begs the question: where will effective supra-national cooperation on economic and financial policies take place?

Given that most CEOs expect the G20, representing 85% of the global economy, will become the dominant political and economic power it might be expected that this will be the obvious forum for such supra-national cooperation. Yet whilst the G20 set out an ambitious agenda in September 2009 to work together on growth, climate change and financial regulation, among other issues, the stresses facing financial policy-makers representing nations from a wider range of growth and development stages are evident.

Indeed, the G20 forum poses its own challenges for global policy coordination. In recent years, global negotiations have become more difficult as more parties, often with differing perspectives and constituencies, come to the table, as witnessed by the current stalled status of the World Trade Organisation’s Doha trade talks. Of course, global forums such as the WTO and the G20 are not the only outlet for national cooperation on economic policy. Even as the WTO’s talks have broken down, for example, regional trade agreements have risen sharply higher, accompanying a broader trend of rising intra-regional trade and capital flows, before the financial crisis (Figure 17). Such agreements are thought to impede global trade in the long-term. Yet, they could represent stepping stones towards global coordination and begin the process of harmonisation amongst neighbouring nations that are likely to have some interests in common. Still, some issues require truly global frameworks, such as climate change, to prevent individual countries undercutting the desired outcomes of such regulatory cooperation.

The case for harmonisation

Our government interviewees also highlighted to us the need for a more systemic approach to global risks, borne of recognition that countries are becoming ever more interdependent and the need to look at risks in aggregate rather than at the level of an individual institution, sector or country. Similarly the lack of congruence between individual action and the collective good is spurring a move towards greater information sharing across regulators to minimise risks, allied to a push for stronger governance corporately to manage risks more effectively and carry them down from Board level to the front-line. Whilst there is recognition of the difficulty of applying regulations globally, there is also evidently a willingness to try harder.

How well national governments coordinate on regulatory reform is however less clear, even when regulators have similar intentions. The day after UK authorities in December imposed a one-time, 50% tax on bonuses of more than £25,000 in UK banks, for example, France announced similar steps. Yet, Germany decided against a new tax, a move Deutsche Bank’s CEO said should strengthen the country as a financial hub9. The example highlights the link between national competitiveness and regulation, and the need for harmonisation in order to reduce regulatory arbitrage.

9 Ackermann Sees German ‘Advantage’ Without Bonus Tax”, Bloomberg, 12 Dec, 2009. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aLP_cZ3zUNw4)

I think it’s probably not realistic to think that regulatory frameworks are going to be identical across countries. It’s probably not productive to even try to achieve that. But convergence, meaning moving closer together while allowing for somewhat differing approaches, yes, I think that is a positive. That has to help in terms of facilitating international transactions and trade.



Num

ber

of r

egio

nal f

ree

trad

e ag

reem

ents

co

min

g in

to fo

rce

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1959 2009*1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

*through October

Regional Trade Agreements

17

Source: World Trade Organisation RTA database

There is also a desire to increase collaboration between multilateral governmental institutions (EU, UN, WB and IMF) to help to foresee future crises and mitigate their impacts. If this does not happen, we may even see an acceleration of an interesting trend whereby world cities are taking up some of the responsibility by collaborating directly, bypassing national governments e.g. on climate change, energy management and a variety of other pressing cross-border issues.

However, there is limited appetite, and indeed some healthy scepticism, amongst our government interviewees for new global institutions – like CEOs, most favour more of a push to harmonise regulatory approaches.

Summing up

It is evident that harmonisation is in vogue and a desire for a more systemic approach to tackling global risks but through improving collaboration, and reform, of existing institutions rather than a desire to create a new panoply of multilateral oversight. The G20 is evidently seen as a more important forum for collaboration, although whether it has the capacity and cohesiveness to make a real difference is as yet untested, with a number of the reforms proposed at recent meetings yet to be fully followed through.

We remain optimistic, however, that the G20 is the right forum for addressing global risks, even if more needs to be done to strengthen the supporting infrastructure to make things happen.

It’s a bit too many Gs [G8, G20]. There is some inflation of such institutions here. Their function is not absolutely clear, whether or not they, for example, should be a substitute for international institutions that don’t work. It is definitely necessary to include economically strong states in these organisations, even when they do not have a status of market economies, such as China, for example, and non-members of OECD.

Martin Tlapa Deputy Minister, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Czech Republic

So are governments working together better? Yes, the G20 took the responsibility to take some central decisions. I believe that that was a good initiative but at the same time we have to move in the wider context of the United Nations system, the Economic and Social Council so you have the force and the strength and the leadership coming out of the G20 but you also ensure that the rest of the countries feel that what we are doing is something that is of interest to everybody.

Dr Juan Somavia Director-General, ILO


Governments across the world are therefore facing the twin policy challenges of maintaining support for their economies long enough to ensure a robust, private sector-driven economic recovery takes shape whilst at the same time planning for a new era of much higher public sector debt which will remain with us all for many years to come. Whilst CEOs did not offer their views on these challenges, our government interviewees had some robust opinions.

Walking a tightrope

Latest estimates, and the views of our CEOs, indicate that 2010 will see a return to world growth. As the global economy makes a gradual recovery, governments will soon need to make decisions on their economic stimulus packages in order to avoid over-stimulating their economies lest inflation rear its ugly head.

The timing of exit from the accommodative fiscal and monetary policy is clearly a threat currently troubling administrations at international and national levels. The concerns expressed by our senior government interviewees expressed this as walking a tightrope between disrupting growth if support is withdrawn too quickly and seeing inflation take off if economic stimulus is maintained for too long. In some regions, this is compounded by the need to re-balance economies away from export-led growth to more reliance on domestic consumers, particularly in Asia. In most countries, there is also a need to re-build consumer confidence.

In addition, critics of government policy claim that economic stimulus packages are proving very expensive and inefficient as a way of creating jobs, with Reuters estimating that in the US the economic stimulus package “has saved or created 640,329 jobs since it was enacted back in February through the end of October... That amounts to $246,436 per job based on the $157.8bn that has been awarded so far.”11

A separate study12 calculates that since 2000 Spain has spent €571,138 to create each “green job”. Although the types of data, assumptions and criteria used in these examples are different with more substantive research needed for a comparable analysis and robust conclusions, the general issue raised is that of the need for more substantive research to evaluate the effectiveness of such job creaton programmes.

Government as debtor

Stimulus spending is underpinning the recovery – the IMF estimates that support committed (if not fully implemented) to the financial sector alone has reached close to 6% of GDP for the advanced G20 economies and 0.4% for emerging economies10. Yet public debt is ballooning in the process, virtually assuring higher taxes and/or reduced public spending in many nations once recovery sets in.

One is the timing of the exit from the accommodative monetary and fiscal measures... Late withdrawal raises the spectre of inflation and asset bubble as ultra low rates may lead to inappropriate risk taking. Excess liquidity remaining in the system longer than necessary can lead to higher inflation. On the other the hand, too early withdrawal of supportive monetary and fiscal policies could disrupt growth.


10 IMF/ Fiscal Affairs Department “The State of Public Finances Cross-Country Fiscal Monitor: November 2009” 11 ‘Cost-Benefit analysis of jobs stimulus’, James Pethokoukis, Reuters, 7 December, 2009 12 ‘Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources’, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Spain


Dealing with debt

Equally pressing is the build up of debt caused by a vicious combination of bank bailouts with subsequent declines in tax revenues and rises in social protection spending as well as spending to stimulate a return to economic growth. According to Robert Bhatia, Deputy Minister of Alberta Seniors and Community Supports, Canada, the result is a ‘fragility of government budget positions’.

Many governments have a fiscal mountain to climb, as can be seen from the trajectory of debt for G20 countries in Figure 18, particularly for those which did not build up reserves in the boom years. This applies at state, local and city as well as national levels.

In the short term, the focus remains on stimulating economies by maintaining increases in public spending as the global economy turns around and heads towards the recovery ward. But, in the medium term, dealing with debt on such an unprecedented scale and avoiding a long term drag on economic recovery requires credible, sustainable plans to address the fiscal gap and avoid a return to intensive care.

Governments, particularly in developed economies, need therefore to develop credible plans to return to sustainable public finances by a combination of tax rises and spending cuts whilst being mindful of the impact of actions on growth, development and social outcomes e.g. better educated, healthier populations with less poverty and, in the long run, mitigating impacts on climate change.

Yet a return to growth is fundamental because it is the primary source of government revenue through personal and corporate income taxes. The priority for government, therefore, is to spend on projects with a high social and economic return, which will assist private sector wealth creation. This includes infrastructure projects, support for SMEs and strategic sectors as well as addressing longer term policy challenges such as healthcare, education, ageing populations and the desire for low carbon economies.

Government debt of G20 countries as % of GDP

18

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

%

2014201020092007

Emerging G20 economies Advanced G20 economies

Source: IMF staff Position Note, November 2009

Let me say first that I don’t think there is any government in the world that wanted to get into this level of debt. They were obliged by the crisis of the financial system so I believe the financial system has a big responsibility in ensuring that governments don’t have to continue being indebted, they have to help the real economy to get going and for that they have to lend… So what should be your strategy to progressively exit from this level of debt? I would say you have to prioritise job creation or social protection, for the more vulnerable, anything that has to do with increasing investment, sustainable enterprise, job creation – and leave it to the last.

Dr Juan Somavia Director-General, ILO

We have a deficit that we need to address, which means that we’re in the middle of an expenditure restraint exercise where we’re looking at our core businesses across government and saying, ‘Which are the ones that we fundamentally have to be in?’ ‘Who can best provide these services?

Shelly Jamieson Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Ontario Public Service, Canada


Doing more with less

There are also important steps that governments can take to do more with less. An obvious starting point is to focus on improving operational efficiency. The most politically attractive areas are in the back office, through reducing duplication, sharing services and re-deploying resources to the front-line. The UK’s Operational Efficiency Programme (OEP) is an example of this approach where the government is seeking efficiency savings in five areas: back office and IT, collaborative procurement, asset management, property and through local incentives and empowerment. The lesson from history, however, is that a focus on efficiency, is rarely enough to turn around major fiscal deficits – governments must transform their approach and seek radically new ways of doing things (see Box 5).

But while delivery efficiencies can save money and improve service, they can’t save, say, 10 percent of your overall budget. If you’re sending $1000 cheques to tens of thousands of people every month and manage to do that more efficiently, you will save money. Instead of costing you three dollars a month to send a cheque out, you may get it down to one dollar. That’s great, but you’re still sending $1000 payments. So, increased efficiency is only a small part of the budget challenge.


Box 5: Lessons from international experience

Netherlands Study Group on the Budget Margin

The Netherlands experienced a period of successive budget deficits in the 1980s and early 1990s. The Study Group on the Budget Margin proposed reforms including a medium-term framework and an agreement process for establishing policy and budget priorities for the duration of the parliamentary term. After implementing these reforms, net debt was reduced by 50% between 1995 and 2009.

Canada’s Programme Review 1994-99

Canada’s public finances were in crisis in the early 1990s, with debt at around 70% of GDP and a budget deficit which peaked at 9.2% of GDP. This prompted a wide-ranging Programme Review, which started from the premise of “what is the Government’s role?” rather than “what shall we cut from the budget?” The Prime Minister was a strong champion for change and a public campaign formed a consensus within Canada that the debt had to be eliminated. Programmes were put through a common Programme Review Test, and those that failed were marked for abandonment or transfers. The biggest savings by far were from “stopping doing things” – efficiency measures just did not make enough of a difference. As a result public sector employment fell by 23% (c. 47,000 jobs) in three years and the budget returned to surplus within a decade.

Sweden’s Consolidation Programme 1995-98

Sweden’s programme was also prompted by poor finances (debt at 84% of GDP and a budget deficit around 10% of GDP). The programme introduced three-year ceilings on expenditure for each ministry. It was up to departments to fulfil service obligations whilst achieving budget cuts of 11% from 1995-98. After 1998, public agencies had to match private sector productivity levels. Debt fell to around 40% of GDP by 2006.

Ireland 2008-09

Facing rising deficits, in November 2008 the Irish government established a Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes to make recommendations for a return to ‘sustainable public finances’. The Group, comprising public and private sector representatives, reviewed each government department’s spend as well as cross-cutting issues and themes and asked whether services were needed and, if so, whether public or private sector should provide them. The Special Group recently reported and identified €5.3 billion of savings i.e. 9.3% of relevant public spending.


The single most important factor in unlocking significant, sustainable reductions in public spending is strong political leadership at the highest level. Without political will and ownership at the highest level, nothing will change. This sets the tone for officials and Chief Executives across the public sector and puts doing more for less at the top of the agenda, alongside the delivery of services to meet public demand.

Prioritisation

Public support and understanding of the issues and the challenge are also vital whilst any measures to reduce costs or re-prioritise services must be a coherent package, so that the ‘pain’ is shared. Governments can also draw on best practice from the private sector. Public sector organisations need to look beyond traditional approaches to cost reduction and encourage new ideas and practices that will transform service delivery.

Private sector companies that are emerging from the downturn as winners are those who have proactively undertaken a strategic, financial and operational review, while positively maintaining ‘business as usual’ and managing their varying stakeholders’ agendas. We believe that these core principles are equally applicable in helping public sector organisations to work through the current economic downturn.

In particular, business has learnt through harsh experience that it is critical to set priorities and allocate the scarce resources available accordingly. Similarly, governments need to stop doing some things in order to focus on other areas of higher priority. Government needs to undertake a fundamental review of its activity and role. In particular, government must prioritise ruthlessly and ensure spending is ‘on strategy’ and not wasted because ‘we’ve always done things that way’ (see Box 6 for an approach to prioritisation).

This, of course, is easier said than done, particularly if it is to be done in a rational and robust way. It is far too easy to develop lists of activities to cut, programmes to stop and organisations to cull, without thinking through the systemic consequences, or to focus on areas of spend which are ‘easy’ to cut. It is also straightforward to call for (although harder to deliver) across-the-board cuts of, say, 10 or 20% without assessing the relative priority of different areas of spend.

These approaches risk incoherent decisions where some very high priority frontline services are cut, whilst some less important activities continue. Similarly, cuts in one area made without consideration for the related services can risk worse outcomes. We believe that a consistent, robust, evidence-based approach is the best way to achieve lasting consensus and success, and ensure a coherent approach to new, lower cost public service delivery.

Where you make the most progress with the efficiency agenda is when the political leader and the official leader are both clearly signed up. If one of them isn’t, you’ll make some progress, but not a lot – and if neither of them are, you are not going to make any progress at all.

Sir Peter Gershon UK Civil Service World, 30 June 2009


Summing up

Governments are facing a conundrum – how to deal with ever more debt at a time when needs are rising, with the economic downturn resulting in greater numbers of unemployed and disadvantaged people needing state assistance. Efficiency improvements will be necessary, but not sufficient on their own to fill the fiscal gap. It will also mean revisiting the role of government, stopping some activities, prioritising some areas over others and re-designing service delivery.

Turning the tide of debt by taking tough decisions on both tax and spending will be critical to restoring the public finances back to health. Failing to fix fiscal problems, by contrast, would be a recipe for persistently high interest rates, more volatile currencies and a less certain environment for business investment, employment and growth.

Sustainable solutions require political will and ownership at the highest level. This must, in our view, entail a combination of tax rises and spending cuts, where the decisions on both are guided by the impacts on economic growth and social outcomes – progressive austerity is the order of the day. But, as any business or family household knows, balancing budgets still requires tough choices and a robust, evidence-based approach to prioritisation which balances the relative importance of government programmes with the ability of government to deliver.

A strategic prioritisation tool for government

Evidence BaseCost-benefit analysis

Core competence analysis

DO

consider

doing more

BUY

invest,

do smarter

SELL

or run cheaply

for a return

STOP

sell any

components

you can

Str

ateg

ic P

riorit

ies

Rel

ativ

e P

riorit

y

Relative PerformanceHigh Low

Low

High

Box 6: A strategic approach to prioritisation

Based on a wide range of public and private sector experience, our view is that prioritisation needs to separate out two important elements of decision making: the relative priority of different areas of spend (which is subjective and will often be determined politically) and the relative performance of the public sector in delivering the service (as determined by an objective cost/benefit analysis). Lower priority services which are delivered poorly are candidates to be stopped; if they are delivered effectively there may be a case for privatisation, or possibly for providing the service to a lower standard at a lower cost. In contrast, higher priority services should continue to be provided, though with radical redesign (e.g. outsourcing) if the public sector provides them poorly at the moment.

The technique is intended to take a ‘zero-based’ approach. Indeed, the approach is as much a process as an outcome - it is essential to involve decision-makers and key stakeholders, as the conclusions should be theirs if they are to be subsequently implemented. The tool can be applied at any level, be it the whole of government or part of an agency, and we believe it is essential as a mechanism for ensuring tough choices are made in a robust and evidence-based way.


CEOs and governments around the world need to look forward. Governments must act as intelligent investors: for growth to take off, governments at all levels must invest holistically, strategically and sustainably in the ‘capitals’ needed by any society for long term prosperity, with the priority being projects with a high social and economic return, which will assist private sector wealth creation, particularly in infrastructure. Equally, governments should be wary of cutting investment plans to balance the books – this will not solve structural fiscal deficits, and will only serve to solve today’s problem at the expense of creating new ones for tomorrow.

There will also be a need for more collaboration between countries based on a need for enhanced infrastructure between as well as within countries (‘joint capitals’) e.g. intelligent transport infrastructure and broadband, as well as to solve debt problems. Yet this must be done carefully given that, at the same time, many governments face rising budget deficits.

It is striking also to reflect on the lessons of the global financial crisis which our interviewees highlighted including a need to:

align policies and have a clear vision of what is being •achieved, particularly avoiding asset bubbles, be they in real estate, commodities or capital markets;

sharpen public and private risk management systems;•

improve coordination between government agencies;•

maintain a dialogue between the public and private •sectors;

question the status quo on a continuing basis; and•

focus on social protection and going for job creation •and growth.

The financial crisis and subsequent global recession has highlighted the central role of government in addressing global and systemic risks. There is no doubt that much stronger global governance is needed to safeguard the fundamentals of the world economy, particularly human and financial capital and natural resources. Public risk management must also improve with stronger mechanisms for mitigating global systemic risks needed, including reform of institutions such as the IMF and World Bank and a greater role for the G20 as a real-time decision -making forum.

Most importantly, governments must continue to re-build confidence and public trust, reduce uncertainty further through intelligent and authentic leadership and vision and create policies and mechanisms for collaboration that are appropriate for today’s global flows of capital. Public sector leaders must shift gear, from being reactive to events to being both proactive and interactive, with business and society. Governments must seize the opportunity to chart a way ahead, investing in the future as the global economy takes off towards growth.

Final thoughts: Governments as intelligent investors

Business concern is focusing, rightly, on protracted recession. CEOs and Governments around the world are preparing for take off and a return to growth. But now is also a time for governments to reflect and learn the lessons of the global financial crisis and put in place the processes and early-warning systems which will help reduce the risk of another global recession in the foreseeable future.

Public and private sector risk management systems must be sharpened. Coordination among government agencies must be improved. Dialogue between the private and public sectors must continue.



The following individuals and groups in PricewaterhouseCoopers and elsewhere contributed to the production of this report.

Acknowledgements

Core editorial teamJan Sturesson Partner, Global Government & Public Services Leader

Carter PatePartner, Global Government & Public Services Co-Leader

Nick C JonesDirector, PwC’s Public Sector Research Centre

ResearchAlina StefanGlobal CEO Survey Team

Claire StylesGlobal CEO Survey Team

Hayley RimmerGlobal CEO Survey Team

Jill HaasanInternational Survey Unit

Other contributorsEgon de Haas Global Government

Sophie Lambin Director, Global Thought Leadership

Lindsey Ford Government and Public Sector Marketing, UK

The Public Sector Research Centre is PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ online community for insight and research into the most pressing issues and challenges facing government and public sector organisations, today and in the future.

The PSRC enables the collaborative exchange of ideas between policy makers, opinion formers, market experts, academics and practitioners internationally.

To register for this free resource please visit www.psrc-pwc.com

Join the debate. www.psrc-pwc.com


Key contacts: PwC Government and Public Sector territories

Norberto [email protected]+54 11 4850 0000

Chris [email protected]+61 3 8603 2337

Bernhard [email protected]+43 1 501 88 2900

Serge [email protected]+32 2 710 9791

João [email protected]+55 11 3674 2000

Mark [email protected]+1 604 806 7539

Ken IgbokweCentral [email protected]+234 1 270 3119

Jiri HalouzkaCentral and Eastern [email protected]+420 251 152 042

Nora [email protected]+86 21 2323 2517

Christian [email protected]+45 89 32 55 14

Marko [email protected]+358 9 2280 1220

Jean-Louis [email protected]+33 1 56 57 8578

Wolfgang [email protected]+49 30 2636 1111

Harry [email protected]+30 210 6874503

Marcello De GuisaHong [email protected]+852 2289 1922

Vedamoorthy [email protected]+91 80 2559 0336

Giovanni [email protected]+39 06 570832426

Luc [email protected]+352 49 4848 2052

Miguel Angel [email protected]+52 55 5263 6000

Hazem GalalMiddle [email protected]+971 2 6946800

Peter van DrielThe [email protected]+31 70 342 6079

Debbie FrancisNew [email protected]+64 4 462 7182

Roger [email protected]+47 95 26 06 99

Luis [email protected]+351 213 599 300

Judith [email protected]+63 2 459 3004

Mark [email protected]+65 96753514

Jorge [email protected]+54 11 4850 0000

Stanley Subramoney Southern [email protected]+27 11 797 4380

Jose Luis [email protected]+34 915 684 522

Lars [email protected] +46 8 555 334 03

Rolf [email protected]+41 58 792 4400

Orhan [email protected]+90 212 326 6204

Jon SibsonUnited [email protected]+44 20 7804 8068

Scott McIntyreUnited [email protected]+1 703 918 1352

Olivier MortelmansEuropean Union [email protected]+352 49 4848 4012

Richard GoldingUnited Nations [email protected]+41 58 792 9100

David HoffmanWorld Bank [email protected]+1 703 918 3856

Tony KingsleyDevelopment [email protected]+44 20 7804 2098

www.psrc-pwc.comPricewaterhouseCoopers provides industry-focused assurance, tax and advisory services to build public trust and enhance value for our clients and their stakeholders. More than 163,000 people in 151 countries across our network share their thinking, experience and solutions to develop fresh perspectives and practical advice.

© 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” and “PwC” refer to the network of member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (PwCIL). Each member firm is a separate legal entity and does not act as agent of PwCIL or any other member firm. PwCIL does not provide any services to clients. PwCIL is not responsible or liable for the acts or omissions of any of its member firms nor can it control the exercise of their professional judgment or bind them in any way. No member firm is responsible or liable for the acts or omissions of any other member firm nor can it control the exercise of another member firm’s professional judgment or bind another member firm or PwCIL in any way.

Printed on FSC 100% recycled material, supporting responsible use of forest resources. Produced at a mill that is certified to the ISO14001 environmental management. This product has been awarded the NAPM 100% Recycled Mark.

100%

PwCs CEO Survey

Documents

Transcript of PwCs CEO Survey