Mr. Schwab, the 56th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum took place in Davos in January – the first time after 55 annual meetings without its founder. Where were you that week ?
I was in Oman, a country that has long fascinated me. I think it was good to gain some distance.
You resigned as chairman a year ago at Easter, rather unexpectedly. How voluntary was this decision ?
I decided to resign at that time because of anonymous accusations made against me, which later proved to be completely unfounded. An independent investigation examined the accusations and found them to be baseless. I wanted to keep the forum out of this discussion.
Following the investigation, the foundation's board of trustees concluded that no significant misconduct had been found. However, the report itself was never published. Do you know why ?
We must adhere to the report's conclusions – and they are clear: The allegations have not been substantiated. Look: You don't build an organization like this from scratch. You need motivated and dedicated employees. And that only works on the basis of trust.
The accusations were already directed against you personally a year earlier. How surprising was that for you?
I was completely surprised. And of course, to this day I still wonder what was behind these accusations.
Do you see yourself as the victim of a conspiracy ?
What's done is done. Ultimately, you have to look in the mirror and ask yourself: Can you be satisfied with what you've done? And can you take responsibility for how you did it? I would answer both questions with a clear yes. I want to look to the future with constructive optimism.
You strongly criticized the contacts between WEF President and CEO Börge Brende and Jeffrey Epstein. Are you relieved that he has now resigned ?
I prefer not to comment on this any further.
The WEF statutes state that as the founder, you would have the right to appoint a successor. How do you interpret this clause, and do you intend to exercise this right ?
It is important to me that the forum and the foundation I established remain committed to their purpose and to Switzerland. I have requested a statement from the Swiss foundation supervisory authority to clarify how this can be achieved.
What does that mean exactly ? Have you submitted an application, have you made any demands ?
I don't want a legal dispute. I simply want to know what rights the founder or their representative still have. Once that's clarified, I'll consider how I should exercise them.
That doesn't sound like letting go, though.
I admit, the separation from the Forum was painful. But it was a separation, and that's a good thing. The Forum and the Board of Trustees now have to find their own way. I don't want to return to the Forum, and I don't need any special honors. It's not about me. To use an analogy: My baby has become a teenager, a young adult of whom I am proud. I don't want to harm him or stand in his way. I simply want to help ensure that he doesn't suddenly go astray in the future.
So you still want to exert influence.
If you have founded and run a successful company, you pass the capital you've created on to your children or give it away as a gift. If, like my wife and I, you dedicate your life to a foundation, then you want it to continue in the spirit you intended. Otherwise, the fundamental idea you championed will be destroyed. Of course, the new leadership of the forum will do things differently, as it already is. The new foundation leadership must decide how it wants to fulfill the foundation's purpose and what it considers important issues. But the purpose itself must not be lost.
For you, stakeholder capitalism is part of the forum's purpose. This school of thought has come under considerable pressure since the U.S. president's re-election and his criticism of «woke capitalism.» Does stakeholder capitalism still have a future ? And is the forum becoming too Americanized ?
First, I'd like to emphasize that during my time at the helm of the Forum, President Trump attended the annual meeting twice, and I had a good exchange with him at the time. I don't know if he labeled me «woke» or not. But you're right: it's always a question of balance. At least at the corporate level, stakeholder capitalism may sometimes have gone too far. However, I believe the dichotomy between shareholder and stakeholder thinking is misguided. I'm talking about a long-term, rather than merely short-term, economic orientation that takes everyone's interests into account. And of course, it's crucial that the WEF remains a geopolitically neutral platform.
You have always emphasized that the WEF should be a think tank – a place where representatives from business, politics and society can jointly develop solutions and improve the world. Isn't that too ambitious a claim ?
The WEF has 1,000 employees. Around half of them work on initiatives that have a real impact. The Forum operates 11 centers that focus on specific topics – such as the industrial revolution, health or smart cities. The Forum's value has always been to be more than just a transactional platform. Whenever possible, we also tried to develop solutions for shaping the future. The WEF is not just one of the world's leading think tanks, but a «do-tank»: a place where the principle of public-private partnership achieves a positive impact through concrete projects.
A kind of better U.N. ?
I don't see Davos as a replacement for the U.N. and other international organizations. The World Economic Forum complements what these organizations do. We help them connect with society and the economy. Davos should address the problems the world will face in five to 10 years, not simply what's currently on everyone's mind. I'm convinced we're completely unprepared for the technological changes that are coming our way. We must work together to ensure that technological change works to our advantage and doesn't harm humanity.
Are you worried about your legacy ?
One must always worry. I worry about the future – and believe it or not, that keeps me young.
What does the WEF need to be successful in the future ?
For me, the most important thing is that the Forum adheres to its fundamental principles. This requires a chair who is independent, has no conflicts of interest, and brings experience from both the public and private sectors. It should be a person who commands trust and status, but at the same time guarantees the independence and neutrality of the foundation. And crucially, this person must also possess intellectual and conceptual strength. Because the Forum must be managed not only operationally, but also intellectually.
You are describing the profile of ECB President Christine Lagarde.
I don't want to mention any names.
You consider it important that the forum's leadership is independent. However, the board of trustees includes several business leaders with commercial interests.
I've been accused of having too large a board of trustees. But I wanted all stakeholders to be represented, including those from science and the arts, as well as important international organizations. A board member doesn't represent their own organization but is accountable to the foundation. Not all members are required to be, nor can they be, independent. But I believe the key officers – the chair and the president or CEO – should meet the criteria I mentioned.
So in your view, the current co-chairmen, Blackrock founder and CEO Larry Fink and Roche Vice Chairman André Hoffmann, are not independent.
One factor is the institutional framework, the other is personality. I have great respect for Larry Fink and also for André Hoffmann, and I am pleased that they are active on the foundation's board. Ultimately, the interests of the forum should be decisive.
You were a professor of business administration for many years. When you resigned last spring, you were already 87 years old. Didn't you simply miss the right moment to arrange your own succession ?
Even as I approached my 65th birthday, I was constantly asked: Who will be your successor? I would have liked to have settled my succession seven or eight years ago. I searched, and there were suitable candidates who would have met the criteria. But something always came up.
In the end, only Klaus Schwab remained.
I wanted a perfect succession; after all, we had been successful, and fortunately, I was in good health. I always say: The question isn't how old you are, but how fit you still are. I'm proud that the Forum is now also on a very solid financial footing. If you exclude the brand value, the foundation's assets amount to around $1 billion. It was and remains my wish to transfer a portion of this to the public sector in order to anchor the Forum more firmly in Switzerland.
How exactly will this work ?
The Forum owns one of the most valuable properties in Switzerland, located in Cologny. It measures 40,000 square meters. An adjacent plot was recently sold for 8,000 Swiss francs per square meter. I wanted to transfer our property to the public sector – with a lifetime right of use for the Forum. I also want to prevent the Forum from one day relocating to Singapore or the U.S. and the site becoming a speculative real estate investment.
However, such a transfer has not yet taken place.
If the future foundation board feels committed to Switzerland, I see absolutely no reason not to carry out this transfer. The foundation would have a lifelong right of use. I hope that my wish will still be fulfilled.
Perhaps the new foundation management wants to get more out of the forum financially. This might be more easily achievable abroad.
Of course, the temptation was always there for me too, to hold as many conferences as possible. Governments repeatedly approached us and said, «Why don't you organize an African meeting, a Latin American meeting, a Vietnamese meeting?» That would turn the Forum into a transactional conference organizer. I never wanted that. My goal wasn't to maximize revenue.
The host country agreement with Switzerland grants the WEF Foundation certain privileges, including tax exemption. This should actually be an incentive for the Forum to stay.
Our employees pay taxes normally, but the agreement grants the Forum certain rights that are otherwise only granted to international organizations. Conversely, I am convinced that the fate of the Forum and its future are also very important for Switzerland.
What do you mean by that ?
We live in an increasingly polarized world, where blocs are forming and the dictum of global cooperation and the international institutions that have shaped it since the Second World War have lost their luster. Precisely for this reason, the World Economic Forum is now more important than ever. A neutral platform in a neutral country is needed to foster an effective, often informal, dialogue between politics, business, and society. I can think of no country more suitable as a base than Switzerland.
You yourself had also considered alternative venues to Davos.
I never intended to move away from Switzerland. We considered places like Singapore or Dubai, but not as a replacement for Davos, only as alternatives in case of emergency, if for some reason access to Davos had been impossible.
This year, too, there were voices criticizing Davos as being too small a location and overwhelmed by the task of hosting the WEF.
For me, Davos has always been the epitome of a global village and therefore the ideal venue for the WEF's annual meeting. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York, we moved the meeting to New York in 2002 as a one-off act of solidarity. It was a fairly successful meeting, much like perhaps the one in 2026. But the discussions focused solely on the crisis at the time and didn't really look to the future. Participants dispersed to countless private events scattered throughout the city. Davos is unique. Its success has attracted unrelated interests and events like honey attracts bees. In my opinion, we need to counteract this more effectively.
That won't eliminate the limousine traffic jams.
My wife and I always walked through Davos during the forum. I think that's something all participants could reasonably be expected to do. If it were up to me, the promenade in Davos, from the village to the Posthotel, would have been declared a pedestrian zone during the WEF. The objection was that this wasn't possible due to cantonal regulations.
After leaving the Forum, you founded a Schwab Academy in Geneva. What is your purpose in doing this? Do you want to create a new, smaller WEF ?
No, absolutely not. My fascination lies in the intelligent age: This isn't just about artificial intelligence, but about a whole range of new technologies that will enhance our intelligence and transform our lives. Therefore, we also need to rethink education, longevity, and retirement. I firmly believe that in the future, we won't learn for life, but throughout our lives. With the Schwab Academy, I want to bring together leading universities to develop new programs for lifelong learning.
Your latest book is called «Restoring Truth and Trust.» Is it influenced by your recent personal experiences with leaving the WEF ?
No. What has been on my mind for some time now are the reasons for the polarization in the world. It's becoming increasingly difficult to agree on a common truth. This leads to a loss of trust, the polarization of society, and distrust of traditional ideologies and elites. This undermines social cohesion and worries me. That's why I wrote the book.
These are all serious matters. Why don't you simply enjoy your retirement and go swimming ?
I swim enough every day. But I'm sure I would age rapidly if I stopped engaging with future-oriented topics.
You will turn 88 at the end of the month. How would you like to be remembered by future generations ?
(Reflects.) As someone who has recognized and succinctly articulated that a company is not merely an economic production unit, but a social organism with societal obligations. And as someone who has recognized that global cooperation will not function adequately in the future if it takes place solely between governments. All members of society must be involved.
Read the original article
