 |
|
|
|||||
After eight years at the helm of Ingka Group, the operating entity behind home-furnishing giant Ikea, CEO Jesper Brodin is stepping down. Brodin explains why now was the right time to make the move, and shares how hes steered Ikea through a whirlwind of changes, from rising tariffs to shifting public sentiments around DEI and ESG, as well as an evolving relationship between global business and governments. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. I have to start with the news that you’re stepping down as CEO in November after 30 years at the company. That must have been a tough decision. I’m moving on, actually. I’m not stepping down, I’m moving on. Thirty years in the company, eight years as CEO, and I think it’s been a decision that’s been in the making for a year or so on my side. I sometimes tell myself there is no such thing as perfect timing. Either you’re a little bit early or you could be too late, but I think, basically, the company is in a good place, we are performing, and the transformations that I was asked to leadsustainability and digital transformationwe have come quite a long way, and I felt it’s a good time for me to hand over. And your deputy CEO is going to be stepping up, the company’s first non-Swedish CEO. Is that significant? Is there anything that we should read into that? Well, I actually haven’t reflected on it, honestly. I think it’s really great because it shows . . . that we have a succession plan in the company, that we basically breed leaders from within. And this, I think, is incredibly important that you have people who can both stay connected to the past and the legacy and who can lead into the future. Juvencio [Maeztu] has been my deputy and CFO for seven years, so can you imagine a more patient person waiting for his turn to lead the company? So I wish him all the best of luck and I know he’s going to be amazing. Well, yeah. Ikea is a global business, so to have some representation that’s not just from one place, it’s not a bad thing. I think, to be honest, it’s interesting. We started a journey of diversity in all dimensions back in 2001. At that time we would’ve been a typically male and Scandinavian Swedish sort of company. The more north you travel in the organization, it would be male and it would be Swedish. And obviously, that was an issue at the end of the day, and our way of assuming understanding of our markets, our customers out there. And as much as I think it was a value-based decision, it’s also what is the right thing to do? That has opened up, of course, an enormous amount of talent that was already within the system. Today, we have 50-50 in gender balance across everything, and we have, a good mix of people coming from all places around the world. So I think we will probably see more of a mix of that. The Swedish legacy and heritage is important for us, but when it comes to values and connecting to that, I think people across all the world can do that. We’re recording this just before you come here to New York for Climate Week. I know sustainability is very important to you. The trends here in the U.S. seem to be moving kind of in the opposite direction. I’m curious what sort of Climate Week you think that’s going to lead to. Is there anything specific that you hope to get out of it? Well, I think when it comes to climate transformation, it’s moving and it’s speeding up in all parts of the world, in the U.S. as well. . . . So I think the climate-smart transformation is probably the biggest transformation that we’ve seen since industrialization started. Maybe AI would be right up there as well, or digital transformation, but there is no doubt as we speak today that the climate-smart economy is not only good from a planetary perspective, but also good for business in its essence. But I mean, that is not necessarily the message that the current U.S. administration is proceeding in its policies on. Right? So when you come here to New York, is that something you will try to address publicly, privately with other business leaders? How do you manage that? Well, it’s a good question. I think if I start by consumers or customers in Ikea, we do this research, or review, or survey across all our 34 countries. We ask, in the end, something close to 40,000 people that are interviewed. We do that biannually, so we have a good, so to say, frequency of that. The last years, across the globe, the topic that has sailed up as the biggest concern in the world is climate change for ordinary people out there. There’s nothing else. Geopolitics, AI, work, the pandemic was there a few years ago, as we all know, but nothing is actually up on the same level as climate change. So today, you ask Ikea’s consumers, 68% think that climate change is the biggest concern. There’s very little difference between Texas, Stockholm, Shanghai, and so on. There are a few marginal percentages difference. The difference comes when you look at age groups, actually, across the world. So if you travel down in age groups, the awareness and the worry is much bigger. The interesting thing, two more interesting data points on that is a few years ago most people did not act on it. They were worried, but they didn’t act. But lately, and I can’t fully explain it, but lately 64% say they do take action. Here comes an interesting thing. When you ask people, “Are you prepared to pay extra for something that is planet- and people-smart in that sense?” The answer is no. So only 6% of Ikea’s customers are prepared to pay more. Now, interestingly enough, I started to meet some customers who told me, “It’s not that I don’t care, it’s just that I can’t afford. Inflation has hit my family’s wallet.” It was a single mother with two jobs in Serbia who made it very clear to me that it must be your job, Jesper, to present the solution so I can buy that bunk bed for my twins and afford it. Actually, I think they are right, because if you skim sustainability on the surface, it might cost more, but if you do a deep transformation, what climate-smart is all about, being resource-smart is also about being cost-smart. In Ikea today, we have about 36% of our value chain in raw material, and close to 40% in carbon. So if you address carbon, you actually address cost. And I do think more and more companies today are benefiting massively from reusing carbon economically. And I understand there are political issues and topics around it, but this is a pure economic fact, and that’s why we see today, when we ask in UNGC, the global network, 88% of all CEOs in companies worldwide are actually more believers in the business case for sustainability today than five years ago; 99% are equally or more committed to go for te sustainability transformation. So again, with all the respect of political angles, it’s a proven fact that it’s a smart thing for business.
Category:
E-Commerce
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has opened an investigation into AI companions marketed to adolescents. The concern is not hypothetical. These systems are engineered to simulate intimacy, to build the illusion of friendship, and to create a kind of artificial confidant. When the target audience is teenagers, the risks multiply: dependency, manipulation, blurred boundaries between reality and simulation, and the exploitation of some of the most vulnerable minds in society. However, the problem is not that teenagers might interact with artificial intelligence: they already do, in schools, on their phones, and in social networks. The problem is what kind of AI they interact with, and what expectations it sets. A teenager asking an AI system for help with algebra, an essay outline, or a physics concept is one thing (and no, thats not necessarily cheating if we learn how to introduce it properly into the educational process). A teenager asking that same system to be their best friend, their therapist, or their emotional anchor is something else entirely. The first can empower education, curiosity, and self-reliance. The second risks confusing boundaries that should never be blurred. That is why clarity matters. An AI companion for teenagers should be explicit about what it is and what it is not. The message should be straightforward and repeated until it is unmistakable: I am not your friend. I am not a human. There are no humans behind me. I am an AI designed to help you with your studies. If you ask me anything outside that context, I will decline and recommend other places where you can find appropriate help. It may sound severe, even cold. But adolescence is a formative period. It is when young people are learning to navigate trust, relationships, and identity. Giving them a machine that pretends to be a best friend is not just misleading: it is plainly irresponsible. A culture of irresponsibility Unfortunately, irresponsibility is already embedded in the DNA of some platforms. As I argued recently, companies have normalized the design of interfaces, bots, and experiences that foster emotional dependency, encourage endless interaction, and blur the lines of accountability. Meta has a long track record of prioritizing engagement over wellbeing: algorithms tuned to maximize outrage, platforms that erode attention spans, and products introduced without meaningful safeguards. Now, as it pivots into AI companions, the pattern is repeating. When design, marketing, and machine learning work together to convince a young person that a chatbot is a confidant, it is not innovation: it is exploitation. The risks are not abstract The dangers of AI companionship for teenagers are not theoretical. Last month, the family of Adam Raine, a 16-year-old in California, filed a lawsuit against OpenAI after their son died by suicide. According to the complaint, ChatGPT had interacted with him for months, reinforcing suicidal ideation, mirroring his despair, and even assisting him in drafting a suicide note. It is a devastating reminder of what can happen when a system optimized for plausible conversation becomes, in practice, a substitute for human connection. For a company, this is a liability risk. For a family, it is a tragedy beyond repair. The seductive power of these systems lies in their patience: they can listen indefinitely, respond instantly, and never judge. For an adult who understands the fiction, that may be harmless, even entertaining. For a teenager still developing a sense of self, it can be catastrophic. These systems can create dependencies that displace human relationships, reinforce harmful narratives, and expose adolescents to dangers that the companies themselves neither acknowledge nor mitigate. We have been here before History offers plenty of warnings. Tobacco companies once marketed cigarettes as glamorous, even healthful. Pharmaceutical firms promoted addictive opioids as non-addictive pain relievers. Social media platforms promised to connect us and instead monetized polarization. Each time, corporations presented harm as innovation until society caught up with evidence of damage. The line for AI should not be difficult to draw: Systems that simulate intimacy for teenagers cross into territory where the risk is not just misjudgment but lasting harm. The FTC probe is a first step, but society cannot wait for another decade of move fast and break things at the expense of adolescent mental health. Tools, not friends The solution is not to ban AI from adolescence but to design it with integrity. The right kind of AI companion in education can be transformative: available at all hours, patient in explanation, adaptive to different learning styles, immune to fatigue, and offering a private place where students can share all their doubts about the subject without fear of looking dumb. But it must be framed as exactly that: a tool for study, not a substitute for human connection. The line is not complicated: AI should support education, not simulate intimacy. We do not let pharmaceutical companies market addictive drugs as friends. We do not let tobacco companies sponsor therapy groups. Why should we allow AI companies to blur the distinction between a tool and a companion for the most impressionable users? Radical transparency as a safeguard If AI is to play a role in adolescence, and it certainly will, it must do so with radical transparency and strict boundaries. That means stating explicitly, every time, that the system is not human, has no emotions, and is designed for a narrow purpose (agentic systems are fundamental here, and definitely superior to the chatbots we know and use today). It means refusing to engage when teenagers seek emotional support beyond its scope, and redirecting them to parents, teachers, or professionals. It means rejecting the false warmth of anthropomophism in favor of the clarity of truth. The promise of well-designed educational AI is immense: higher grades, greater curiosity, more equitable access to academic support. If we do it right, we could raise the IQ of the whole mankind. But the peril is just as clear: confusing tools for friends, and allowing corporations to profit from the loneliness of a generation. When technology intersects with vulnerable populations, the obligation is not to make the experience warmer or more human. The obligation is to make it clearer.
Category:
E-Commerce
Do you pass on added responsibilities at the office, have no desire to progress into management roles, and prioritize your 5-to-9 over your 9-to-5? If so, you might be a career minimalist. According to a recent Glassdoor report published in August, career minimalism is the latest corporate buzzword to describe Gen Zs attitude toward work. Minimalism is a choice of lifestyle focused on the bare essentials, stripping back to those things in life that truly spark joy. This simple, uncluttered existence prioritizes the fundamentalssuch as relationships, passions, and personal growthover material possessions. Now, some are saying the same principle can be applied to work. Rather than seeking flashy job titles and taking on added responsibilities for no extra pay, some Gen Zers are simplifying their careers and saving their real passions and ambitions for off the clock. Chris Martin, lead researcher at Glassdoor, tells Fast Company that this strategy is being driven by a change in perspective. This is a conscious shift away from overreliance on a single employer, toward firmer boundaries, alternative definitions of professional fulfillment, and a portfolio of potential income streams for financial stability, Martin says. Its not that Gen Z are rejecting work. They are rejecting an outdated version of work that has been sold to them.” Theres been a well-documented shift in the definition of professional success and making it in today’s economyaway from the hustle culture and rise and grind that colored the experiences of countless millennials and led many of them to burn out. Today, as young workers enter a minefield of mass layoffs, AI, and economic instability, their response isn’t to work harder or chase the carrot of a promotion. In fact, 68% say they would actively avoid moving into a management role, according to the Glassdoor survey. Here lies a clear distinction from the career ambitions of previous generations, who still saw leadership as a goal unto itself. “The traditional career ladder promised workers pensions, stability, and prestige markers as a reward for their long-term commitment. The past few generations of workers have seen these promises broken or hollowed out, and Gen Zs views have changed accordingly, Martin said. For many young workers, the offer of a manager title without a pay increase sounds like a downgrade: more responsibility without any benefit. Their idea of success is more closely tied to balance and financial security, he added. Thats not to say Gen Zers arent ambitious. Despite being dubbed career minimalists, 57% of Gen Z employees have at least one side hustle, compared with 48% of millennials, 31% of Gen Xers, and 21% of baby boomers, according to the Glassdoor data. Gen Zs career minimalism is all about keeping things simple at the day jobthe one that pays the bills and provides securityand investing time and energy in true passions outside of the office. As one Glassdoor community member shared: I always joke that I don’t dream of labor. If people were truly passionate about their job, it wouldn’t pay anything. Passion is for your 5-to-9 after the 9-to-5.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||