I think that striving for change is an existential phenomenon: it is deeply rooted in the nature of life. But for me, in a way, it is something that needs to be adapted, nurtured, refined, made more... more real over time, because it can just as easily emerge from inner ambitions that are ill-adapted because in some sense that ambition encounters weaknesses, wounds, fears, frustrations, whether conscious or otherwise, where I tend to want others to change whereas I myself probably need to make this undertaking. So it encounters this yearning, both that while equally things that are truly on the level of the blossoming of the human being in his or her capacity to be part of the world, relate to others and almost be connected with the universe. So in the yearning for change that some people feel, some of us more than others, there is really this duality. And where the ability to be an entrepreneur, to take things to
a collective level, to transform things around us, is strong enough in some of us, such yearning turns to action. If you are not careful, those ambitions that needed to be purified and nurtured, are accompanied by everything else. And so the action of transformation cannot be exact, it is still tainted with this inexactness, with this
non-fulfilment indeed. And so I think we can only transform the world around us if there is firstly an effort to transform ourselves, to grow our inner being into what each of us has a calling to become and that this effort is actually what serves to ensure that our misguided yearnings disappear, transform, are appeased and that what draws us along ultimately is the desire for enlightenment rather than fear of the dark. This is an effort that can only be undertaken if we are willing to pause, step back from our actions, take time and make space for inner expression, each person can invent the person in which he exists and is called on to be, but it seems something that is essential to me, otherwise I think we overlook reality. For me, in a way, we are all called on to grow in resonance and harmony with the rest of the universe, so of course as human beings, this means with one another. And if we do not work on this through our own inner instruments, to perfect how our strings and harmonics work in tune with one another, the expressive power of this instrument is not the same. The more tuned this instrument is and the more its sound carries naturally, harmonically, without the instrumentalist needing to play forcefully. And I think that, again, this interior acquiescence is what enables us to enter this dimension in which change operates not only through my will but rather through my acquiescence. I think that this dimension of acquiescence, is key to allowing the transition from personal change to collective change to bear fruit. I personally am of a deeply dissatisfied disposition within myself and so I am biased towards action, change, transformation, conviction and I have realised on a number of occasions that changes, when I drove them with this energy, were rarely sustainable or rarely sufficient. I can fully recall experiences in which I willingly left space for some of my colleagues to have the experience that I had gone through and which raised my awareness of environmental issues, what people are doing in Senegal regarding mangrove replantation, for example, or meetings with people where I preferred not to attend myself as a way of letting go because as a result I didn't know what direction discussions or briefings would take or how far they would go, and where I realised that these discussions often far exceeded my expectations quite simply because, by going from a form of stranglehold, or assumption of power over changing others to a position of patience and trust both in their abilities to get off the ground, so... this sometimes led to fantastic things at Danone and the example of the lunch between Franck Riboud and (inaudible) is one such example in October 2005, it's one such example, where I had flown back to Shanghai specifically in the hope that a meeting between them could be as fruitful as possible, and so I thought, of course, the meeting maybe carried less risk if I was able to steer the discussion, knowing both of them to some extent, but this would almost certainly not have led to the magic that happened between them at that moment.