EDITOR’S LETTER

Competitive edge versus ESG: the pros and cons of meeting in Monte

“It doesn’t really matter what a mere publication thinks, but we definitely miss the buzz of the Café de Paris!”

As another virtual Monte Carlo Rendez-Vous draws to a close, it is perhaps worth reflecting on the nature of the conference—and how the industry has managed without actually being there.

Almost every interview we have done this week has included an off-the-record discussion about the pros and cons of the event, travel more generally and face-to-face meetings. It is perhaps worth summarising some of the points that have been made—and no doubt there will be more debate to follow.

It is worth noting that at the start of this week the Rendez-Vous’ Organising Committee unveiled plans for a physical event in 2022—but with the caveat that they would review things in the Spring. Their crystal ball is obviously as opaque as everyone else’s. No-one can predict the future course of the pandemic or, more importantly, what government responses and policies might be.

The case for

There is no doubt that the majority of the senior executives we have spoken to miss face-to-face meetings and want a return to some semblance of normality. They gave several reasons for this, all business imperatives.

The most common is simply that negotiations are easier in person. This is true for explaining complex concepts and when getting to the nitty gritty of pricing and terms and conditions. As one executive pointed out: “It is easy to say ‘no’ via email; much harder when you’re face to face.”

One of the few executives to have addressed this issue on the record was Paul Brand, the chief executive officer of Convex. In yesterday’s Monte Carlo Today, he stated that he believes companies and executives who are willing to meet in person will gain a competitive advantage over those who are not.

This will become an interesting dilemma for CEOs making company-wide decisions on travel and meetings. There are many good reasons not to travel or meet during a pandemic, but they may count for little when it comes to the bottom line and share prices.

Another good reason several executives noted was development and training, and the importance of nurturing a new generation of talent who are familiar with the industry only via a computer screen at present. One said: “This is not an industry you can learn by reading a book. There is too much nuance, too many people skills, too much body language that comes into play in person.”

Finally, several people noted just how effective—and efficient—a good conference can be. Most executives adhere to a strict regime of 30-minute slots during Monte Carlo, meaning people can fit in as many as 20 meetings in a day. Then there are the unexpected meetings and chance encounters at the evening events and dinners—these can lead to fantastic business opportunities and are impossible to recreate on Zoom.

Plus, who doesn’t like a nice dinner in Monte Carlo—one of the perks of working in this industry?

The case against

The biggest challenge to travel, conferences and in-person meetings now, of course, is the very real threat of COVID-19 itself. Perhaps it is irresponsible to travel during a global pandemic—and some companies certainly agree. Equally, government guidelines mean that even when travel is technically possible, it is fraught with uncertainty and risks—one positive test and the best of plans can be derailed.

But some companies are seeing the bigger picture. Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) factors are right at the top of the industry’s agenda. Not travelling does wonders for the industry’s carbon footprint and plays nicely into the softer demands of many investors. The industry has coped, so why not carry on as we are?

Closely linked to this is a reputational issue. Even if we can travel, is Monte Carlo really the best place to hold an annual industry conference, associated as it is with lavish wealth, excess and a favourable tax regime?

Finally, of course, there are the costs involved. There is no doubt that companies have made significant savings while not travelling and the associated marketing spend during this period. In an industry constantly scrutinising its own expense ratios, surely this aspect of the debate cannot be ignored.

So there you have it: the pros and cons of travel, conferences and the Rendez-Vous as described to us by senior leaders this week. Where do we stand? It doesn’t really matter what a mere publication thinks, but we definitely miss the buzz of the Café de Paris!

Wyn Jenkins, managing editor, Intelligent Insurer

Image: shutterstock.com / Keith Burke