Connected but disconnected

Millennials are the most connected generation to have ever lived but a significant proportion of them are plagued by loneliness, an expert has warned.

The charity Relate said that under-25s are “increasingly likely” to experience loneliness.

But they are by no means the only generation tormented by the loneliness epidemic that is sweeping Britain.

Around a million elderly people are afflicted, with one woman describing how she felt as though she had “forgotten how to speak” after going so long without social contact.

And children as young as six are reaching out for help to combat feeling lonely.

It paints a depressing picture of the problem spanning all aspects of British society.

How loneliness affects different age groups© PA How loneliness affects different age groupsThe Government has said that loneliness is a complex issue but one it is “determined to tackle”.

But there appears to be a mammoth task ahead – figures show that the UK has a higher than average proportion of adults who have “no one to ask for help”, when compared with other European countries.

See the full article on MSN.

The culture of contempt

Robert Hall, 

Somehow the royal wedding of Harry and Meghan at St. George’s Chapel – testimony to the power of love and inclusion – seemed positively surreal. The latest school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas – testimony to rage and contempt – seemed negatively real and culturally the new normal. Church and school. How do they link to a culture of contempt that seems to be overpowering our relationships – our greatest source of joy, often our most hurtful pain and usually the path to healing?

It is not our differences that are undermining our society but our growing contempt that cuts us to the bone. Think about it. What most agitates and animates you in your differences with others over politics, religions, or social policy? Is it that someone has a different view point? Usually not. It is this awful dance of contemptuous arrogance where one or both parties – take on an elitist tone, acting like they are more “learned” or morally superior to their dance-partner, who knows nothing – is nothing.

Contempt is the deadliest form of relationship cancer. So says John Gottman – the famous marriage guru (chronicled by Malcom Gladwell) who with just 15 minutes of observation predicted with 90 percent accuracy whether married couples would be together 15 years later. Gottman defines contempt as trying to speak from a higher level while attempting to push another down to a lower level. Contempt – closely related to disgust – is all about hierarchy and wielding elitist power to hatefully exclude another from the community.

Contempt cannot be trusted. All of us have experienced decent, credible people corrupted by its deadly poison. It has been disturbing to watch people or whole news organizations become deranged over President Trump and before him Hillary Clinton or President Obama – clearly there is market-demand for contempt. Or, closer to home, to see a couple of executives or board members become the very thing they hate in a turf battle.

Hate distorts reality, prioritizes confirmation over truth, occupies and traps us in negative emotions, hollows-out, makes awful judgments, weaponizes power to destroy others. Hate is selfish, self-serving and destroys our conscience. Haters become what they hate. Extreme hate actually winds up empowering and aiding the other side. Off-the-rails hate has probably helped prop up Trump – by contrast making him look nearer normal. Hate can be trusted – to be absolutely untrustworthy. No one damages us the way we damage ourselves with hate-based contempt.

When Contempt Becomes a Cultural Riot

Our growing contempt feels like a cultural movement that is causing us to exaggerate our differences, join tribes and go-to-war with each other. We are not just angry at the other side, we wish to disassociate. Fifty percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats say they would be unhappy if their child married someone from the other party – up from five percent in 1960. Segregation is the historic word used to describe the shameful practice of separating oneself from an “inferior,” unworthy other group.

This tribal segregation, fed by growing partisanship and a narrowing of beliefs, is further fracturing our institutions: marriage, political parties, universities, church denominations and even brands we purchase – CNN vs. Fox on news.  No surprise that 42 percent of Americans now describe themselves as political independents or “none-of-the-above” (versus 29 percent Democrats, 27 percent Republicans) up from 32 percent in 2004. No surprise, that the percentage of religiously unaffiliated or “nones” has doubled in the last 18 years and is the fastest growing religious category. We increasingly define ourselves by the relationships we do not have – not married, not engaged at work, not Democrat or Republican, not religiously affiliated.  Communities are a basic building block for a society and yet in becoming so toxic and hate-filled these groups leave people with two dysfunctional choices – unconstructively alone or destructively together.

Colleges and Churches: When Institutions Become Instruments of Contempt

Where is this rising contempt coming from? Clearly, today’s internet and social media provide a way to weaponize, communalize and scale-up contempt like never before – immediately, emotionally, globally and anonymously.   Technology surely helps explain low-cost, efficient delivery of contempt. But what about the manufacturing side – what have we learned and what values have we absorbed that makes us want to impose our views so powerfully, self-righteously and destructively on others? There is a term for forcing other to conform to our views: fascism.

When I was in graduate school back in the 70s, I thought that education was our great hope. I thought that once we as a society became more educated, we would have more aligned views and more civil discourse on controversial issues.

Unfortunately, the result has been just the opposite. Research shows that as our levels of education rise – so does our intolerance for those with whom we disagree.  For example, new research indicates that a college education may make people more tolerant of demographic diversity like race, but LESS tolerant of political diversity. It helps explain why 58 percent of Republicans say colleges have a negative effect on the way things are going in the U.S. – up from 32 percent in 2010. A recent study of the political registration of full-time Ph.D.-holding professors in top-tier liberal arts colleges found that 39 percent are “Republican-free” – having zero Republicans. Remember the famous line by then-candidate Ronald Reagan: “I did not leave the Democratic Party, it left me.” Many Republicans believe academia has left them.

A similar case could be made about the loss of progressives from certain faith-based communities. Today 73 percent of the Republican Party is white-Christian but just 29 percent of the Democratic Party identifies this way. Progressives often feel the harsh, narrow tone of faith has “left-them” – or at least is not relevant for them in a post-modern world.

College and church*: Two key institutions that educate and shape our values and hold such promise for tolerance and acceptance – have too often narrowed their base, their beliefs, and headed in the opposite direction. Many have become more contemptuous, excluding of “other” and even engaging in militant cultural warfare. Ironically, so many of our great, traditional universities and most of the Ivy League schools have origins tied to churches: Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth, Columbia, Oxford, to name a few. Universities that felt stifled by the narrowness of founding church sponsors – have become more like them – often excluding and condemning those who do not adhere to their prescribed beliefs.

We worry about concentration of wealth, but we should also worry about highly concentrated and partisan sources of learning and values. What happens when we get our news and views from highly one-sided sources: like Fox or MSNBC for news, academic research from politically segregated universities, movies and comedy from a Hollywood that leans heavily left, and faith that leans heavily right. We become a culture of contempt – rioting with dimly lit torches, weaponizing rusty pedagogical pitchforks.

Relational Learning – That Sustains vs. Destroys 

Learning at its best and highest is relational. We learn from others, with others and for others. Relational learning is designed to impact others positively – especially those who are apart, different or not inclined to hear.

Constructive relational learning seeks a scalable, sustainable approach that honors what we have learned but also stimulates us with humility and curiosity to expand our awareness of what we do not know. It seeks to grow the learning pie – and the community of learners by inviting those who share our views and especially those who do not. It acknowledges how susceptible we are to dogma and zealotry. As Richard Rohr puts it: Poetry doesn’t claim to be a perfect description as dogma foolishly does.

The old model is teacher/learner and answer. The better model is learner/learner and mystery. The credentialed one who “knows the answer” is dependent on the “unlearn-ed” one to teach her to make learning clear, relevant and to understand how the ignorance of the “unlearned” actually informs “learn-edness.” It is why teachers usually learn the most in interactions with students.

Destructive learning by comparison, sees knowledge as finite and exclusive, accessible by the few – the tribe. It values certitude over curiosity, seeks to silence dissenters and seeks an answer that ends the discussion. It sees other points of view as threats that warrant being suppressed. In sum, it destroys the very diverse relational community that offers hope for more learning. Too often our institutions of learning have become elitist sanctuaries whose culture and brand has become contempt – where power is used to exclude “others.”

It is time to revisit how these two key institutions address their mission of learning and advancement. It seems they have fallen in love with having and being the answer; and have lost the mission of enabling a learning community that seeks the answer. Relational learning is a process with no finish line, that welcomes strangers and engages “other.”

Relational learning is a key source of hope and opportunity in countering a culture of contempt.

Being Christian in Western Europe

 A newly-published survey by Pew Forum indicates that the majority of Europe’s Christians are non-practicing, but they differ from religiously unaffiliated people in their views on God, attitudes toward Muslims and immigrants, and opinions about religion’s role in society

Western Europe, where Protestant Christianity originated and Catholicism has been based for most of its history, has become one of the world’s most secular regions. Although the vast majority of adults say they were baptized, today many do not describe themselves as Christians. Some say they gradually drifted away from religion, stopped believing in religious teachings, or were alienated by scandals or church positions on social issues, according to a major new Pew Research Center survey of religious beliefs and practices in Western Europe.

Yet most adults surveyed still do consider themselves Christians, even if they seldom go to church. Indeed, the survey shows that non-practicing Christians (defined, for the purposes of this report, as people who identify as Christians, but attend church services no more than a few times per year) make up the biggest share of the population across the region. In every country except Italy, they are more numerous than church-attending Christians (those who go to religious services at least once a month). In the United Kingdom, for example, there are roughly three times as many non-practicing Christians (55%) as there are church-attending Christians (18%) defined this way.

For the full report, go here.

The rocky road of EU reform

Open Europe has published a new briefing, ‘The rocky road ahead for the Franco-German reform drive.

The briefing argues that it is increasingly unlikely that Franco-German cooperation on EU reform will live up to the high expectations that have developed since Macron’s election in June last year. Part of this is due to the lack of a coherent German response to the proposals delivered by France. But  smaller states have also grouped together in opposition to a new integrationist push led by the Franco-German duo – the so called Franco-German motor. Continued political instability in other parts of the EU, such as Italy, signals further stumbling blocks .

While there are few easy wins up for grabs, progress on a couple of key reforms remains likely. This briefing maps them out in detail. Where have Paris and Berlin found common positions, which proposals are backed by a majority of member states, and what reforms are off the table already?

Open Europe’s Policy Analyst, Leopold Traugott, said:

“Despite the pro-European rhetoric struck by Germany’s new government, its traditional EU reform red lines on key issues such as debt mutualisation haven’t moved much. Berlin wants and needs to work with Paris to get reforms going, but so far seems unwilling to commit to the compromises necessary to achieve  much of this.”

“Many of Macron’s most colourful ideas, such as installing a Eurozone finance minister or creating transnational lists for the European Parliament, are basically dead in the water. Berlin and other Nordic member states want to focus on bread-and-butter reforms instead, steps that are easy to implement and offer concrete benefits. At the same time,  Macron is now looking at European defence cooperation outside of the EU and its PESCO framework.”

“Macron has presented a coherent vision for Europe’s future, and laid bare the vacuum that currently exists in German political thinking. If Germany cannot reach a compromise with the most pro-European French President in decades, then with whom could it? If Macron fails, Euroscepticism in France and across Europe will only grow stronger.

To read the full briefing, click here.

Key conclusions

• It is increasingly unlikely that Franco-German cooperation will live up to the expectations that have developed since Macron’s election in June 2017. While some reforms are likely to materialise, there are few easy wins available.

• Some of Macron’s reform proposals were dead on arrival in Berlin, or ran against the core interests of too many member states. His plans for a Eurozone finance minister, transnational lists and a smaller Commission are de facto off the table.

• The idea of France and Germany moving ahead alone – for example by bilaterally harmonising their corporate tax rates – sounds promising but has pitfalls. Similar projects have been announced repeatedly in the past, yet rarely materialised. Still, if successful, this could deliver an important signal.

• The easiest progress may be achievable on securing the EU’s external borders and improving migration management. Both French and German governments see the need for a beefed up Frontex. Austria’s EU presidency beginning in July 2018 will provide further backing. The key challenge will be to find sensible flanking measures.

• Brexit is shifting the balance of power within the EU. The group of fiscally conservative, northern states traditionally led by the UK is left weakened, but is attempting to stand its ground against Franco-German hegemony.  This further limits the scope of action for Paris and Berlin

Time to Teach: Time to Reach

A new book released by Relational Schools focuses on what great teachers really do, and finds that great practice – and great learning – is driven by relationships

Time to Teach: Time to Reach – Expert Teachers Give Voice to the Power of Relational Teaching is authored by Nat Damon, a US-born educator living in London.

Nat, who has enjoyed a successful 25-year career as a teacher and school leader in a number of well-respected schools in the US, spent the past two years interviewing teachers in the United States, England, and further afield. Focusing his interviews on professionals with 10 or more years’ experience, he asked his contributors to set content aside and focus on the question, “what do you really do?”

Time to Teach: Time to Reach explores the answers to that question by presenting teacher voices and examples of practice that define why relationships lie at the heart of essential teaching, and how learning is cognitively, emotionally, and socially driven.

Time to Teach: Time to Reach is aimed at both new and experienced teachers, and supports the work that often gets unacknowledged in this age of data, performativity, and quantifiable measurement. Excellent teaching cannot be recognised through student assessment outcomes alone. Rather, excellent teachers are defined by the power of their student relationships.

Written primarily for the US market, though of relevance for teachers everywhere, Time to Teach: Time to Reach has been written with parents of school-aged children in mind too, particularly those who are looking to develop their understanding of what the very best teachers do, so that they can better align with the school during the course of the school year.

Time to Teach: Time to Reach will be available on Amazon UK and US on 7 May, 2018.

About Nat Damon

As the son of a teacher and having grown up in a family of educators, Mr. Nat Damon is a 25-year educator currently living in London, England as a writer and educational consultant.

Throughout his career, Nat worked as a teacher and administrator at K-12 schools in Boston, MA and Los Angeles, CA. He has worked at the foundational level of two new independent schools in Los Angeles. He has also served on the board of a series of successful charter schools in Los Angeles, CA.

Currently, Nat facilitates seminars on building and maintaining positive school culture, social-emotional learning, and technology integration in the US and UK. He is involved with Relational Schools Foundation in Cambridge, UK, as a consultant.

When not working with schools, Nat can likely be found in the mountains or on the water: skiing, sailing, hiking and always learning.

About the Relational Schools Foundation

Research shows that having a range of close relationships is beneficial to physical and mental health. For young people, experiencing better relationships between those around them, and also between themselves and others, results in better mental health and behaviour, lower rates of absence, bullying and disengagement, and improved progress and attainment. Schools themselves benefit as organisations from being more relational in their practice, seeing more engaged and motivated employees, better staff retention, and – critically – the achievement of aims that relate to student progress and achievement. Our vision is to improve society by strengthening the quality of relationships between people, starting in schools.

We work with schools and other organisations to better understand the impact of current practice on relationships, and to explore how to best drive change so that relationships flourish, and the benefits are realised.

We do this through a programme of relational research, using qualitative and quantitative tools to measure the quality of student-to-student, teacher-to-student, teacher-to-teacher, parent-to-teacher, and school-to-school relationships, and to identify how this correlates with other outcomes.

Through this work, we seek to:

  • FORM new knowledge and generate evidence about the positive impact of more relational schools for young people, their communities, and wider society, thereby promoting an understanding of the importance of relational health
  • INFORM and support positive and evidence-based change in the way schools are organised and how they conduct their practice with respect to teaching, learning, leadership and management, thereby improving the relational health of everyone in them
  • REFORM the way system-level organisations and authorities conduct their business of policy and regulation, changing practice for good by promoting influential evidence and building a ‘movement’ of relational change-makers.

Book events:

  • 20-28 May in Los Angeles
  • 30-3 June in Connecticut
  • 4-6 June in Boston
  • 15-30 June in London and Cambridge, UK

Needed: A Reformation for Our Tribes

by Robert E. Hall

The ability to see the good in others and the bad in ourselves is perfect vision. John Wooden

Maybe you have noticed how the mighty – and their prominent tribes – have fallen. Linked by shared social interests, these leaders and their tribes have many names, forms and recent crackups. Tribe Hollywood, as the cultural elite’s royalty, assumed the pose as society’s secular pope preaching economic and gender equality — has been deposed. It turns out that Harvey Weinstein was not just a person (noun) but a too common sexually abusive leadership behavior (verb Weinsteined).

Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly of tribe Fox, icons to many conservative Christians, have spent tens of millions of dollars silencing their sexual assault/harassment victims. Meanwhile, pastors like Dallas’ Robert Jeffress drop all hints of condemning sexual immorality in supporting President Trump – who has the gall to call-out Senator Al Franken.

Tribe Hillary, a long-standing champion of feminists, advanced to black-belt in victim-blaming and shaming Bill’s sexual targets. Those condemning religion for its hyper-judgment often joined tribes that serve up their own religious fervor in judging those they consider sinners on the wrong-side of political correctness, immigration and climate change. Former freedom of speech champions now engage in aggressive and violent tribal tactics to silence adversaries on college campuses.

Conservatives predicting budget-deficit Armageddon have gone silent in light of big tax cuts that likely grow our deficit, while Democrats who never met a deficit they did not support, become deficit condemners . And, Washington D.C., the capital of telling others what to do, turns out to be the global center of doing it all wrong themselves. Life truly does make hypocrites of us – and our tribes.

Tribalism is also infecting business. Tech companies like Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Google and Uber are seeing their brands erode right before their eyes: from being viewed as cool, progressive workplaces with innovative products to monopolistic conduits for election manipulation, pornography, and sex trafficking with toxic work environments — and aided by out-sized political influence and government subsidies. What was holier-than-thou has morphed into unholier-than-most – large, powerful tribes run amok.

When Tribes Act Like Gangs

In today’s world it seems we have tied more of our identity and emotional self-worth to our tribal relationships. Mary Eberstadt argues our growing and sometimes unhealthy emotional attachment to tribal groups is a Primal Scream in response to the loss of identity that we used to get from family and community relationships, now in decline. Certainly, the allure of gangs for father-absent boys reinforces that notion. Regardless, there is no arguing that social media greatly increases our ability to wound each other in the ensuing tribal combat.

As we have invested more of our identity into our tribes, our tribes have too often devolved into self-serving agents of hypocrisy with destructive tendencies. Gaggles become groups, groups become teams, teams become tribes, – and tribes and their leaders intoxicated by power and success grow blind, insular, self-protective and destructive. Tribes, this most valuable source for sanctuary, protection and our elusive need to belong – risk becoming destroyers of the very glue that holds our society together.

If politics is the new religion, it seems to be a carrier of the same sins of the old religion. Becoming more tribal in today’s hyper-social media environment often means becoming anti-relational – and acting more like gangs.
Relational Reform: Three Keys for Your Tribe

Many critics point out that attacks by ISIS and other radical Islamic groups are evidence of their need for religious reform. On the 500-year anniversary of the Christian Reformation, it is a good time to ask: What is our own tribe’s capacity for relational reform – to avoid going off the deep end? Relational Reform is the ability of groups to change, respond and govern in a way that avoids relational abuse and corruption. Whether your tribe is your work group, political affiliation, religious group, club, family, or neighborhood – can it reform to avoid relationally destructive behavior?

Tribal reform is complicated and excruciatingly demanding. The big truths come wrapped in paradox that must be weighed and balanced. Let me propose intentional examination of three areas that provide rich potential for reforming your tribes:

1. Pride that animates balanced with humility that invites self-evaluation and change: Pride in who we are, our purpose and our history is a source of esprit de corps and energy that reinforce aspiration, high standards and our sense of belonging. Think the Marines. However, with this pride we need humility that sees and admits faults, excesses and need for reform. Confession is not just some antiquated practice, it is the cornerstone to continuous improvement. Pride and humility are dance partners that keep us going, improving and changing. Only seeing the bad in others but not in ourselves eventually kills the dance. In your tribe where is pride/humility out-of-proportion, blocking needed reform?

2. Accountability that brings discipline balanced with grace that forgives and liberates. Accountability and grace are most meaningfully viewed not as two different things – but as two-sides of the same thing – dealing with our imperfections. Accountability faces imperfections by embracing discipline that enables correction and improvement. Grace wipes the slate clean to start over – removing the emotional baggage that drains energy and effort.

Accountability is a strength of high-functioning groups. Too often powerful leaders are tempted to avoid personal or tribal accountability to others, purpose, values and results. Separation – by isolating or rising above – diminishes accountability. However, accountability is only harsh judgment if it comes without grace that acknowledges imperfections, loves and offers second chances – giving permission to try, fail, learn and grow. In your tribe where is accountability/grace out of whack and an obstacle to needed reform?

3. Power that brings energy and control balanced with empowerment that unleashes and frees others. Power brings energy to get things done and glue to keeps us organized and together. But centralized, controlling power can inhibit energy and innovation. The key to scalability is to enable and empower others in a way that grows the power supply and brings new ideas. Un-enabled and out-of-control empowerment lead to chaos and unnecessary failure. In your tribe, where is controlling power/uncontrolled empowerment inhibiting reform?

There is nothing more crucial than our ability to see and address the bad in ourselves and in our tribes. As reformers say: reformed and always reforming.

First published in HUFFPOST, 11/20/2017 11:42 am ET

What’s happening to the world economy?

Negative interest rates, the rise of cryptocurrencies, low volatility, record global debt … what’s happening in the world economy, and should we be concerned? Last year, Paul Mills gave a lecture explaining the state of the world economy, and exploring how we should look at economics relationally.

What Relational Research is saying on UK Corporate Governance

The Financial Reporting Council published Proposed Revisions to the UK Corporate Governance Code in December 2017. The document you can download below sets out the comments of Relational Research.

In summary, we welcome the recognition of the value of the contribution of stakeholders to the success of companies and of engagement with them and their interests, as well as the wide-ranging impact of companies’ activities on stakeholders and the importance for boards to consider how their companies interact with the workforce, customers, suppliers and wider stakeholders.

We are also pleased to note the acceptance that companies can do more to recognise that the workforce and other stakeholders play a significant part in the long-term success of the company and that this is reflected in the revised Code by a requirement that boards should ensure effective engagement with, and encourage participation from, shareholders and other stakeholders.

However, as explained in the download, we suggest that the revised Code and Guidance should be clarified and expanded in a number of ways to help to understand and emphasise the value of an inclusive approach to stakeholder interests. We would ask that it be noted that we submitted comments on the Green Paper on corporate governance reform published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in November 2016.

Proposed revisions to the UK Corporate Governance Code

Why land reform needs a relational approach

Published in City Press, 2018-03-18 06:03, Marlie Holtzhausen

The overarching questions have been what and why?While they are important, South Africa’s new land reform is less focused on the deeper values that shape people’s relationship with land. So, how can relationism inform the debate and decisions on land reform?We are familiar with capitalism, individualism, socialism and Marxism, but beneath relationism lies four presuppositions about the nature of human beings:

  • That all human life has intrinsic value and dignity.
  • That good interpersonal relationships are of primary importance to both individual and societal wellbeing.
  • Good relationships depend on the presence of both obligation and choice in the social structure.
  • Lastly, that a good relationship is to be understood primarily from a moral point of view.

Why should land be returned to its rightful owners? The answer by politicians is that land was taken by force and must be returned by whatever means possible.

But land has greater significance. For example, good relationships are regarded as essential for individuals and communities to flourish. Land is the physical space on which individuals and communities build and establish their lives and identities. It is with families, friends, neighbours and colleagues that life is shared. Land is a place where people have encounters with others. It is also a social place where we form histories, values and common purpose which may lead to building momentum and resilience in relationships as we align with others.

We have knowledge of others, and the more we know them the more we can anticipate and respond appropriately to them. When we understand the power dynamics among people living together, we should also realise how land can be used to create fairness, respect and participation. Through shared land space, we can have good and healthy interactions with others. We can also find dignity, security, rootedness, community, permanence and belonging, and share a sense of responsibility and commitment with others.

The effect of apartheid’s dispossession of land on the breakdown of relationships and its effect on the value and dignity of black South Africans is colossal. The consequences are still with us and will linger for at least another generation. If we view dispossession from this relational basis, we must carefully consider land reform policies not only as economically or politically viable, but as a fundamental rebuilding of a relationist society which was dismantled in the process of forceful removal.

The restoration of land means restoring good human relationships and putting together shattered households and family arrangements. In this case, land reform becomes that which strengthens the deep sense of value and dignity of human beings and the importance of the environment in which we interact and relate to others.

Therefore, I suggest that if we view land from a relational point of view, it adds more weight to why the land reform process should be done faster than in the past two decades. We should see land not simply as a way of organising society – which sounds “nice”, but as a major change in the approach in which we have viewed land purely as a political problem.

If the breakdown of good relationships and fragmentation of families and households has far-reaching implications on societies, economies and politics, it seems to me that we need to solve societal challenges at their root issue – restoring relationships.

Marlie Holtzhausen is a doctoral candidate, focusing on building a relational economy and society, at the University of Pretoria

The Economics of Mutuality

The Economic Summit Europe 2018 has the theme: Making government and business mutual.

Thursday, April 12 (09:00) to Friday, April 13 (16:00) at the Dutch Parliament building, The Hague, the Netherlands.

The Economic Summit exists to promote the dissemination and implementation of new paradigms on finance and economy based on Christian tradition, faith and thought, and transformational busi-nesses generating four-fold capital (human, social, natural and profit) as new models for poverty alleviation and sustainable economies. Sustainable economies do not exist in isolation, but have everything to do with the social, political and spiritual structures in which they are embedded. The focus therefore also includes the factors that lead to sustainable development.

From the very first meeting in 2014, the Economics of Mutuality (EoM), a concept pioneered by Dr. Bruno Roche, senior Economist at Mars Inc. and the Managing Director of the Mars Catalyst Think Tank, has played a key role in Economic Summit events. During the past few months, this idea has also been presented at the Lindau Nobel Laureate Committee meeting as well as at the World Economic Summit and UN General Assembly meetings in New York. It is clear that this is an idea whose time has come!

In the Economic Summit Europe meeting, 12-13 April 2018, the focus will be on the practical applications of EoM in business and management practice as well as in government and public policy. The goal:

1. To demonstrate that this is a concept that works in both emerging and first world nations.

2. To get broad buy-in from the business, political and academic communities in The Netherlands and Europe.

3. To start to develop best practices for the implementation of EoM and the concept of Mutuality in The Netherlands. To this aim, we will set up a National Centre for knowledge and best practices that will be able to liaise with hubs in different cities nationally and across the continent.

The organising partners for this meeting are the Economic Summit, Sallux and GIDS Network Netherlands. The first day is hosted by the ChristenUnie party at the Dutch Parliament Buildings in The Hague. Attendance at the Economic Summit Europe meeting is by invitation only..

Application to attend
This meeting is by invitation only. If you would like an invitation, contact Dr. Arleen Westerhof at . Once your application has been approved, we will send you a link and information to complete the application process and to reserve a hotel room if necessary.

More information here.