Jeroen: Welcome to a new episode of the Leaders in Finance podcast. Thank you for tuning in again. This week we’re joined by Michael Jongeneel, the CEO of FMO, the Dutch Entrepreneurial Development Bank.
Welcome, Michael. Thank you very much. I’m happy to be here.
And I’m very glad to be with you—and I’m actually at your place, so thanks for having me. Before we begin, we would like to thank our partners for their invaluable support: EY, Mogelijk Vastgoed Financieringen, and Lepaya. A heartfelt thank you to our partners, because without you it would be really hard to run this podcast.
As usual, and as a good tradition, I’ll start by spelling out my guest’s name. Michael is M-I-C-H-A-E-L and Jongeneel is J-O-N-G-E-N-E-E-L.
Before we start the conversation, Michael, I’d love to speak a little bit about you in my introduction. You’ve been the CEO of FMO since September 2021. The bank manages a portfolio of over €15 billion and invests in the private sector in more than 85 emerging markets.
Michael studied Business Information Technology at the University of Twente. He began his career in consulting with Accenture and McKinsey. In 2007, he transitioned to Triodos Bank, where he held various executive roles as Chief Operating Officer and later Managing Director at Triodos Investment Management. After eight years at Triodos, he joined Bain & Company as a partner, where he established the global sustainability in financial services practice. In this role, he advised major banks and insurers on their role in the climate transition.
Michael is also highly active in society. Just to give a few examples, he served as treasurer at Oxfam International and was treasurer of Giro 555 for seven years. He lives near Utrecht, is married, and has two children.
As an introduction—when preparing for this podcast, there’s so much to read about you. You’re such a diverse human being, and these are my words. You have so many interesting things we could discuss. I’ll try to cover it all, but that’s going to be hard.
I thought: where should we start? That was a difficult question. Maybe we could start with your parents—and your father in particular—because he was a reverend, right? He was into theology. Is that correct?
Michael: Yes, that’s correct. It also brought us to Indonesia, where I was born and where I spent the first six years of my life. That’s also where I developed my affinity for emerging markets, which ultimately led me to become CEO of FMO.
My father studied theology. He was a reverend for a while and also a university professor here in Utrecht, but also overseas. That has definitely shaped me as an individual.
Did he bring a lot of his thinking home? Yes. At the same time, my mother has also been very important in my upbringing. Even this morning, something came up about that. For those searching online, you can find an article in the Dutch Financial Times interviewing me and my mother.
So both my parents have had a strong influence on me. That also relates to a Christian background, which guides me in my work—and beyond just my work.
Jeroen: Could you give an example of something important to you that came from that background?
Michael: If you look at the New Testament, the idea is that you don’t just care about yourself, but also about others. That’s a theme that comes back in my leadership and in the book I wrote.
The core idea of loving your neighbor as yourself is fundamental to who I try to be. It’s not always easy, but it’s a core foundation for me and for my leadership.
Jeroen: I’ll definitely come back to how you grew up and everything. But maybe for people who don’t know FMO—since you’re the CEO, that’s why we invited you—put very simply: what is the goal of FMO?
Michael: We serve the private sector in emerging markets, as you said in the introduction, and we try to be additional. That means we go beyond what commercial banks typically do.
We focus on SDG 8, 10, and 13: economic growth, reducing inequalities, and climate action. In 2022, a year after I started, we set goals for 2030: €10 billion in SDG 10 and €10 billion in climate action (SDG 13). Deliberately the same amount.
At the time, there was more traction on climate, but we said: it’s equally important. You can’t teach a hungry person about climate change. We need to tackle inequality and climate together.
We do this in three sectors: financial institutions, agri-food and forestry, and renewable energy. This focus allows us to go deeper and take more risks where others might step back, increasing our additionality.
We also follow a strategy called Pioneer, Develop, Scale.
In Pioneer, we operate in high-risk environments using public funds from the Dutch government, the UK government, and the European Commission.
In Develop, we help clients—especially on ESG—move further than where they are today.
In Scale, we mobilize commercial capital. For example, we work with insurers like Allianz to scale investments. That’s a few billion of our €15 billion portfolio.
Jeroen: Just to be sure—I looked it up—DFIs are Development Finance Institutions, right?
Michael: Exactly. And the distinction with MDBs—Multilateral Development Banks—like EBRD, EIB, AFD, and so on. DFIs are typically bilateral. The position of FMO in the European landscape is interesting, but we can come back to that later.
Jeroen: Let’s look at stakeholders. First: who owns FMO?
Michael: That’s an interesting distinction. We are 51% owned by the Dutch government. Around 40% is owned by Dutch financial institutions like Rabobank, ING, and ABN AMRO. The rest is a diverse group of shareholders, including private individuals.
Most DFIs and MDBs are 100% government-owned—we are not.
Jeroen: Another stakeholder: your clients. Who are they?
Michael: We have roughly thousands of clients globally. These include banks, agri-companies, and energy companies.
They range from small startups—since we also do venture capital—to large institutions. For example, Axis Bank in Nigeria. We started financing them when they were much smaller and supported their ESG development. Now they’re one of the largest banks, and we still support them in expanding into more complex markets.
Jeroen: What’s the smallest and biggest deal you do?
Michael: At the top end, transactions over €100 million, sometimes in syndications of €400 million.
At the lower end, around €10,000—for example, technical assistance to help companies develop ESG systems.
Jeroen: Is that direct or through local organizations?
Michael: Both. We finance financial intermediaries like banks and microfinance institutions, which then lend locally—for example to small entrepreneurs. That’s indirect.
The smaller technical assistance amounts are direct, but always to companies, not individuals.
We do lending, equity, and everything in between—guarantees, repayable grants, and innovative products like green bonds.
Jeroen: Another stakeholder: politics. Is that relevant for you?
Michael: Yes. We have regular dialogue with the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
We operate at arm’s length—we are independent and generate our own profit—but we take government policy into account. The challenge is that policies can change, while we are long-term investors.
Jeroen: Is the government an active shareholder?
Michael: Yes and no. We have structured interactions, like twice-yearly strategic meetings. But we must treat all shareholders equally.
They also provide a state guarantee, which supports our capital market funding. That creates a different kind of dialogue.
Jeroen: Next stakeholder: your colleagues. How big is the organization?
Michael: Around 1,000 people—over 900 employees and about 100 externals.
Most are based in The Hague. We also have offices in Kenya, South Africa, and Costa Rica, and we’re opening one in Ivory Coast.
About 40% of our workforce is non-Dutch. We actively build a diverse organization to reflect the markets we serve.
Jeroen:Do you ever speak Dutch?
Michael: Sometimes—but all formal communication is in English.
Jeroen: Next: funding. How do you fund yourselves?
Michael: Through equity and capital markets. We also use public and commercial funds.
A significant part comes from capital market funding, supported by the state guarantee.
Jeroen: Are there strict rules on who you take money from?
Michael: Less strict than on the investment side, but we follow all sanction lists and regulations. We also align with government guidance where relevant.
Jeroen: Regulation: how are you supervised?
Michael: Like any Dutch bank of our size—by the Dutch Central Bank.
Jeroen: Do you personally spend time with regulators?
Michael: Yes. My teams prepare everything, but I’m directly involved and have regular interactions.
Jeroen: You’re a unique case: relatively small, but operating in high-risk countries.
Michael: Exactly. That makes it harder for regulators to fully grasp what we do. We don’t do standard mortgages—we operate in complex, high-risk environments.
Jeroen: What are examples of difficult markets?
Michael: Yemen, Ukraine, Burkina Faso—countries with conflict or instability.
Jeroen:And AML challenges?
Michael: We strictly follow AML rules. The bigger challenge is ESG standards across different contexts.
KYC can be very complex—sometimes there isn’t even a chamber of commerce. That’s why we have a relatively large KYC team.
In fact, if you want to do high-level KYC, FMO is the place to be.
Jeroen: Competition—do you experience it?
Michael: Yes, especially from institutions in the Middle East and Far East, particularly in renewable energy in Africa.
Within Europe, it’s more collaboration than competition. We co-invest and share knowledge to increase impact.
Jeroen: Do commercial banks ever challenge your role?
Michael: Rarely. More often, they ask us to take a junior tranche or provide risk capital so they can participate.
Jeroen: Final stakeholder: society. Is that the most important one?
Michael: Yes. European society enables what we do, and benefits from it—often indirectly.
Take cocoa: the Netherlands is the world’s largest importer. Sustainable production ensures stable prices. That’s something we finance.
More broadly: local economic development reduces instability, migration pressure, and conflict.
And then climate change—this is global. We focus on both mitigation and adaptation. Without adaptation, we risk losing key resources like cocoa entirely.
Jeroen: Interesting—you mentioned that people may not fully realize the impact back home. Are people in the countries you serve more aware of the impact you make?
Michael: They don’t have to be thankful, but they are typically more aware because they are lending with us or receiving equity. So there is a much clearer, more direct relationship. We are not a retail bank in the Netherlands or in Europe, so people do not know our brand. We also don’t need to be known as such.
But that is why I think the business part of society, typically in the countries that we finance—especially where we finance a lot—is more aware of our existence and of the benefits that we bring than people here in the Netherlands. That is not a problem in itself. We are also not going to run a marketing campaign or anything like that. But yes, that is simply a fact.
Jeroen: Yes. So you do €15 billion. We were earlier discussing whether that is big or small. I don’t know. But if you had €150 billion, or €1,500 billion, or €15,000 billion, could it easily be deployed, or is there a limit to it? I mean, would you like to do much more?
Michael: We would definitely like to do much more. And I need to be honest: when we were discussing this with the Dutch pension funds, I also told them, look, if you gave me €50 billion tomorrow, I would have difficulty deploying it.
That is where our strategy of Pioneer, Develop, Scale comes into play, because within the Pioneer section, we have added something we call market creation.
Why market creation? Because in the end, there is a lot of money in the world. There is sufficient money. But are there sufficient opportunities? And in combination with the risk that many companies and banks are willing to take, that is where the issue lies.
So we are very busy creating a longer-term pipeline to ensure that when society starts realizing more and more that we need this, we are also able to deploy increasing capital streams.
And we see those increasing capital streams because many companies—despite some general thoughts, especially coming out of the US, that climate would be a hoax—many countries, including large ones like China and India, are very much aware that this is real.
Jeroen: Yes, we’re beyond that point.
Michael: Yes, we’re beyond that point. So we see the willingness to finance, but there is a perception of high risk. And we need to take away that perception of high risk. Sometimes that is done by financing first-loss-type structures, but we need deployment possibilities. And that is hard work.
Jeroen: But an additional €5 billion would be relatively easy to do? Or €10 billion? Or doubling?
Michael: Yes. I mean, we have a growth path of around 6% or 7% a year. If we received more money, it would also mean getting the right people and the right knowledge.
Jeroen: And ultimately the risk appetite, right?
Michael:
Yes, but that is also a combination of blended finance—a bit of jargon as well—where we are able to combine commercial money with patient capital: capital that is more willing to focus on the longer term, with somewhat lower return expectations. In those combinations, we can do a lot.
Jeroen: For quite some years, I lent money from one of the Dutch banks to SMEs locally in the Netherlands. That was already very hard, right? To figure out what these businesses actually do.
And they are relatively simple businesses: small businesses, sometimes loans of €250,000 or even smaller, or up to a few million. It was always very hard to figure out.
Let alone in another country, with bigger numbers and maybe data not always available. Is it difficult to figure out what companies actually do and what reputational risk you have, let alone credit risk? I’m just curious from a lending background: how difficult is it?
Michael: Let me say that it is not easy. A typical trajectory for a loan is not two or three months. We are easily talking about around nine months.
But let’s be clear: SMEs are typically financed by the financial institutions that we finance. The agri-companies that we finance directly are typically the larger agri-companies. And there is typically a lot of information available.
At the same time, we have been in these markets for 40 years. We know a lot. And of course, we have our network and local partners, also from NGOs. We work with embassies, and we also work with clients that we have already been financing for a while.
So we have ample opportunities to get the right insights and make the right decisions. And I think if you look at our impairments over the last 10 or 20 years, it shows that we have a good understanding of local risk.
Jeroen: But in a way, it’s even harder because indirectly they may do things you haven’t financed directly, but through this organization. And you’ve had cases in the past where something happened, and it must be really hard to control all of that. Ultimately, you need to take risks to be at the forefront of what you call the pioneering model, right?
Michael: Correct. Indeed. And it is not without risk. Sometimes things go wrong.
Jeroen: Which is great material for newspapers, I guess.
Michael: Yes, absolutely. And that is also where we regularly get questions, and that is fine.
For us, it is a careful balance between being additional, going beyond, and taking those risks. Sometimes we indeed make mistakes, because if we never made mistakes, we could question whether we are taking enough risk. But it is a very fine balance, and a very difficult balance.
So we pay a lot of attention to ESG, as I mentioned before: environmental, social, and governance aspects of our clients. We try to see things through, and we are getting better and better at it. But yes, once in a while, there is an issue on the ground, and we try to take care of that in several ways.
Jeroen: You started quite some years ago already as CEO. What are the biggest things you have changed in the organization as CEO? Was that in the first 100 days, or are you still doing it today?
Michael: I’m still doing that today, definitely. The first 100 days is an interesting concept, but not sufficient, because I keep learning. It is a privilege to lead this organization for over four years, but there is no week in which I don’t learn something new.
Jeroen: So what are the biggest changes? I just looked it up: it’s almost five years, right?
Michael: Yes, in September. Indeed. I just started my second term.
There are a couple of big changes. First, the one I mentioned: market creation was not part of FMO’s strategy. There were some ad hoc trials, but we really made it part of the strategy.
Second, we focused the strategy much more and set those ambitions of €10 billion in SDG 10 and €10 billion in SDG 13: reducing inequality and climate action. So we really focused the organization much more.
Another element is that we started what people typically call a culture change program. But we set an eight-year strategy in 2022 and embarked on a multi-year, six- or seven-year cultural change program. We call it Values in Action.
That is something we do with the top leadership, but also throughout the whole organization. Recently, literally this month, we started providing training to all our employees, and the training is being delivered by our own managers, not by external facilitators.
So we did a train-the-trainer type of approach to help managers give that training. We want it to be really embedded on the ground, because you often see culture programs that last 12 or 18 months, and embedding them is so difficult. I’ve seen it go wrong so many times.
So when we launched it in 2023, I said: this is here to stay. As long as I’m here, and as long as this Management Board is here, this is going to happen.
Those are things that are not easy to touch upon, but they are very important. And I think we have also improved the relationship with a number of stakeholders, which was at a bit of a low point when I started in 2021.
Jeroen: When it comes to leadership, you’ve also done a lot of thinking about it. You’ve seen a lot of leaders, and you’ve worked with a lot of leaders. We discussed it just before this interview, and the book is actually on the table now.
I’ll try to translate it into English: Eight Essential Steps for Leaders of the Future, or Towards the Future. Written by you and someone else. Tell me more, because I haven’t read the book, to be honest. I should have.
Michael: No, don’t worry. I wrote it in 2014 together with Guido van der Wiel, after I really realized what my leadership style and leadership paradigm were. That was created after leadership travels in Africa, but that aside.
The essence of the book is twofold. One is derived from the subtitle, which is Beyond Win-Win. In short, the book argues that win-win contributed to the financial crisis. One trader would help another trader, they would both benefit, and there we go. And who was the loser? The taxpayer, in the end.
So the book argues that we need leadership that looks at win-win from a different perspective. Not me and you win, but everyone has their own interest. That is the first win. Everyone also has an organization or a family—a second circle—to take care of. That is the second win.
But the third win is everything else: all other societies in the world, future generations, and nature. We need to understand that if you make your own profit, your own win, and you take care of your own organization, but that comes at the cost of other people or nature, then it is not a sustainable model in the end. Sustainable as in: for years and generations to come.
I think that is an essential element. I also see it going in the wrong direction now, to be honest, in wider society. So you could say I have been completely wrong, because we are not moving enough towards win-win-win. The personal win and the country win, or the local win, are being emphasized.
I hope we get to a turning point sooner rather than later, because otherwise, for future generations, it looks pretty bleak.
Jeroen: I guess your book is about what should be, not what is, right?
Michael: Correct. But I was hoping it would actually become reality and be embraced in the spirit of where we were going. That is a serious challenge.
Jeroen: How do you stay optimistic? Or maybe your father would say—and these are my words—that it is a moral obligation, in more philosophical or theological terms.
Michael: Yes, I think we indeed have an obligation to keep trying. I will do whatever I can—or maybe that is too much—but I will do a lot to try to move things in what I think is the right direction.
I am not saying that what I think is automatically the right thing, because you continuously check with other people. But broadly, I think what we do with FMO is really in the right direction.
So you remain optimistic that we will make a change. We experience that change, we hear about that change, and we get acknowledgement in our local markets. It is not easy, but we will keep trucking, despite backlashes and claims that climate change is a hoax. It is not.
So I remain positive that this is the direction we need to travel. How far we get—time will tell.
Jeroen: Did a lot of people read your book?
Michael: It was printed for a second time quite quickly. The book is in Dutch, and in the Netherlands it reached second place in the rankings.
Jeroen: Shouldn’t you update it? You said 2014, right?
Michael: Yes. Maybe an updated English version. If the listener is really interested, in December 2025 I published the summary on LinkedIn.
Jeroen: The summary in English?
Michael: Yes.
Jeroen: There you go. We should link to it.
Michael: It was interesting because it was based on clients asking about it. They were researching me and said: you wrote a book, so why is it only in Dutch? I just did not have the time to translate the whole thing.
Yes, I thought about having it translated by AI, but I thought I’d rather do a very thorough translation of the summary, which is only three or four pages.
Jeroen: Is it still completely right in essence? Should it be updated? Have you developed new thoughts or insights, or is it still totally applicable? You can be arrogant here, that’s fine.
Michael: No, it’s not arrogant. For me personally, it is still applicable. I still try to live by it every day, because it is very difficult in its real essence. So I am still on the journey of learning it.
Yes, it is still very valid. Of course, there are a couple of examples in the book that are a bit outdated, but the essence is definitely still there.
Jeroen: That’s great. Now I definitely should read it, and we’ll link to it in the show notes.
What I find interesting is the date, 2014, because if I look at your résumé, that was also around the moment when you started—or had already joined—Bain after Triodos. Is that right?
Michael: No, it was still during my Triodos time, but I was indeed about to transition to Bain.
Jeroen: Because it’s really interesting. If you look at your CV, you are—my words—sometimes more on the commercial side, and then more on the public side. I wouldn’t say Triodos and FMO are completely public, but they are more public-oriented. Is that also something in you, that both sides interest you?
Michael: Yes, absolutely. When I was 23, I took time to write my own long-term plan: what do I want to do when I grow up?
I was in Australia at the time, for three months, and I thought: I can make new friends and go to the pub every evening. But instead of that, I thought: I’ll be working in a year or two. All these companies have visions and strategies and that type of thing. Why don’t I have my own vision, mission, and strategy?
So I started writing it down. And as a strategist, I made a two-by-two matrix. The vertical axis was influence. The horizontal axis, to the left, was commercial, and to the right was not-for-profit.
In the top right, I put something like “head of the Red Cross.” I thought: do I want to start at the bottom right, join the Red Cross, go into the field, become a team leader, and slowly grow through the ranks?
But my parents also told me: there is something in the commercial world that might give you skills you can later transfer. So I started on the left axis: the commercial, profit-oriented axis. I thought: where can I learn the most? Is it in multinationals, or in consultancy?
After doing three internships, I found out consultancy might be the best path. I started with Accenture and very quickly moved to McKinsey, as strategy was, in my opinion, even more impactful. And I learned even more.
Later, I found out—because this was in 1996—that it is not black and white, but a whole grey scale. The notion of social entrepreneurship did not really exist then.
So now I am basically balancing in the middle, where Triodos is, and where FMO is: making profit for a good cause. I try to combine the commercial strength I learned at McKinsey and Bain with the not-for-profit orientation, the social good orientation, and helping people in need.
In my Oxfam time, I also learned a lot. And at Bain, I worked a lot pro bono for UNHCR. So I have quite broad experience there. For me, that middle ground of making profit for a good cause is very sustainable in itself.
Jeroen: But you were 23 when you wrote this down. Do you still have that piece of paper?
Michael: Yes, I do.
Jeroen: Is it very short? Is it just a matrix, or is there a whole text around it?
Michael: Both. It is a matrix, and I can actually show it to you afterwards if you want.
Jeroen: I don’t need proof. I trust you.
Michael: And there is a whole text—about 30 or 40 pages.
Jeroen: When you read it now, is it still completely you? Or have you changed so much that you look at it and smile, thinking: that’s funny, I was 23? Obviously, it was different.
Michael: A couple of things have changed, but I also kept track of it. I updated my mission statement throughout the years. I still have several versions, and you can see the progression. Some of your views change.
Recently, a colleague asked me: can you share a belief you had at the start of your career that has now completely changed?
In the beginning, I thought: let’s try to separate private life and business life completely. When I’m at work, I’m at work. When I’m at home, I’m at home.
Over the years, I found out that it really does not work. There is so much influence in both directions. If you have a fantastic weekend, you are much happier on Monday. And if you have big problems at home, you bring them to work—and vice versa.
That definitely changed. Some other elements changed as well, but the basic foundation of what I really want to achieve—the core of my mission—did not change, even if the wording did.
Jeroen: That’s really interesting. It reminds me of an interview with Jos Baeten, still the current CEO of a.s.r. insurance company. He said that one of the biggest eye-openers—my words, I don’t know the exact quote—was when he stopped separating work and private life so strictly and started merging them more. It was a big eye-opener for him.
It sounds like it was for you as well. But you must become more vulnerable in a way, right? Because you share things from home that you weren’t used to sharing.
Michael: The interesting thing is that, in the way you phrase it, it sounds like vulnerability is an issue.
Jeroen: No, it’s a great thing. That shouldn’t be the tone. What I’m trying to say is: ultimately, it’s a strength, but it must feel very vulnerable at the beginning. That’s what I meant.
Michael: Yes. And in my case, at some point, sharing was also completely inevitable. I’m happy to share more if that is of interest.
But I now see in my current position that I also regularly share things that happen at home that are indeed vulnerable. I’ve had so many positive reactions from people saying: now that you share this, I dare to share where I am, because apparently it is okay to share.
Yes, it is okay to share. And that is beautiful, right?
Jeroen: No, but also for you—to see that people dare to do it because you did. Ultimately, it’s tone at the top, right? You’re the CEO, that’s a fact.
Michael: Yes, it helps. And I think it creates a situation in which people are able to talk about these things. In the end, that helps them resolve things.
The flexibility of managers and directors within FMO is crucial here, because it enables them to handle situations differently than they would have if they had not been aware.
Jeroen: And, quote unquote, practically speaking, which we can all find publicly, you’ve gone through a lot privately, right?
Michael: Yes, that is correct, because there is also a paragraph about it in the book. My wife has suffered from cancer three times, which has been very hard. She is my real hero, because the way she has dealt with it is absolutely phenomenal. I wonder whether I could ever have done the same.
The first time, my wife was pregnant. At 16 weeks of gestation, we were told that the only way forward was an abortion. Long story short: we did not choose that. My wife combined chemotherapy with being pregnant.
We basically had to make a hardcore choice every day: do we start chemo tomorrow, yes or no? Starting chemo early is good for the mother and bad for the baby, who is now my beautiful 22-year-old daughter.
Between chemo six and seven, at gestation week 33, my wife delivered my daughter. And then she still had to finish the chemotherapy.
Of course, this influences your life completely. These are the toughest choices I have ever made. I sometimes say: why don’t I feel stress in my work? Because compared to these types of choices, it is relatively easy.
Back to the point: yes, you go through these things. In those periods, I received fantastic support from McKinsey, because I was working at McKinsey at the time.
Jeroen: How did you ever do that? Because McKinsey is well known for not working five hours a week, right?
Michael: No. I was allowed to take unpaid leave for however long I wanted.
Jeroen: Great support?
Michael: Yes, absolutely. And with my second child, things also went wrong. Again, they were extremely supportive.
So you are on and off. McKinsey very much realizes that these tough things cannot be combined with being on a building engagement. So they said: go home, try to handle it, and when you are ready, you are welcome to come back.
After that, I stayed for another three or four years. Some people then asked: why are you going back to that rat race? You’ve now found out what is really important in life.
I said: yes, true. At the same time, it showed me that the mission I had written down a couple of years before was still valid. I was not at McKinsey because everybody wanted me to be there, or because of the money, or whatever. I was there for a reason: to fulfill a longer-term purpose.
I had discussions with my wife about how we would be able to do that and how I would be able to combine it. And that is why I went back and still enjoyed a number of years there.
Jeroen: Everything that happened with your wife—it sounds like it made your relationship even stronger. Or not? Because you often hear that these kinds of things can go both ways.
Michael: They can go both ways. We see that, because in tough times, relationships can go sour. In our case, definitely not. I am very happily married, and I am extremely proud of my wife.
Jeroen: That’s great. You made that very clear.
In the beginning of your career, you said you had this matrix and then had to choose which direction to take. There was a comment that triggered me. I made a note here where you said: you can also learn a lot. Maybe your parents said it, or maybe you thought about it yourself.
Was the commercial route—my words—more a means to a certain goal, or did you actually enjoy it intrinsically?
Michael: The primary aspect was that it was a means to a goal. And in the meantime, I enjoyed it, because otherwise six years at McKinsey is very long. So yes, I enjoyed it.
I also made friends whom I still see, and I learned a lot from my mentors at McKinsey. At the age of 33, I joined Triodos Bank on the Executive Board. I think that would never have been possible without the learning trajectory I had at McKinsey.
Jeroen: Was there a moment at McKinsey when you thought: I’m just going to stay, or I’m going to become managing partner, or whatever?
Michael: It was never clear. I was waiting for something to make clear whether that would be the path. At the point when I was about to become AP, say junior partner, my second child—my son—was born, and he needed so much attention that, in the long term, I could not combine it.
When you go into the junior partner role, you commit to going really deep for another two years. Then you want to be at least a partner for another three or four years. So that would mean another six-year stint. It was pretty clear that I had to do something else.
And then, miraculously, Triodos Bank came onto my path. It was love at first sight, you could say, and the rest is history.
Jeroen: Then I would expect that if you went from the more commercial side of Accenture and McKinsey into Triodos Bank, FMO would be the next step. But what did Michael do? He went back into hardcore strategy consulting with a global consulting firm: Bain & Company.
Michael: Yes, it is an interesting route. I agree. It happened.
It actually started with McKinsey asking whether I would be willing to come back after around seven years at Triodos. Then Bain gave me the opportunity to develop sustainable finance: really bringing sustainability into the financial services sector.
I thought that was a very interesting opportunity, because then I could do what Triodos does, but potentially at a larger scale, or even a global scale. It was an interesting experiment to see whether I could combine my consulting skills from McKinsey with what I had learned at Triodos Bank.
I did that for six years with a lot of enjoyment at Bain, and it was going really well. Then FMO, which of course I knew because I knew the scene and had worked with them from Triodos, was looking for a CEO. I could not resist putting my hand up.
Very early on, even before I applied, I told Bain: I am thinking about this. If this happens, I will leave Bain. And because people know me, they said: best of luck with the application procedure. We hope it works out for you.
And it did. But otherwise, I would have loved to stay at Bain longer.
Jeroen: At Bain, as you alluded to, you worked a lot on ESG. Was there a lot of demand from the private sector for that? This was still around 2014 to 2021. It was before CSRD and everything.
Michael: Correct. One of the first things I did was together with Maurice Oostendorp, at that time CEO of SNS Bank N.V.
Jeroen: Later de Volksbank, now ASN.
Michael: Exactly. We crafted their whole new strategy. We also worked with Temasek out of Singapore.
There were a couple of organizations—early movers, frontrunners—that really got it. We also worked with a client in Mexico and a client in the Middle East. Again, frontrunners who really thought: something is happening here; we need to make a change.
Then COVID happened, and there was a strong spike in the realization that this is a vulnerable world. There is much more in the world than just making money. So it accelerated in that period, 2019 and 2020, especially around COVID.
Now, of course, we are in a different situation. On the one hand, there is the US climate hoax narrative that I mentioned before. On the other hand, there is now the war in the Middle East and the notion of dependency on fossil fuels.
So you see a bit of duality in the world. Underlying that, I think many, many people understand that this is the way to go. Unfortunately, some companies are still driven by quarterly earnings, which makes them focus too much on the short term. That is a real pity.
But leaders take a stance and say: I know I have quarterly results, but in the end, I am here to lead an organization with a longer vision and a longer-term path. They resist the quarterly earnings pressure and make changes that may only bear fruit in a couple of years.
Jeroen: We started this interview on the personal side, and I promised to go back to that in more detail. You mentioned Indonesia. Why were you there?
Michael: My father was a teacher at the university. Not on Java, in Jakarta, so not on the main island, but on Sulawesi. He was there for that reason. We were in the south in the beginning and later in the north.
Jeroen: How old were you?
Michael: I was born there, and we moved back when I was about six.
Jeroen: So you have memories.
Michael: Oh yes, very clearly. Strong impressions.
We lived in a stone house—not big, not a compound with a swimming pool. We didn’t have a swimming pool, but it was a stone house. We lived next to the rice fields, the sawahs, and there were people living in wooden huts.
So the notion that there are inequalities in life was very clear, very evident. My parents basically taught me: if you grow up and you can do something about it, the quoted moral obligation is yours. You have a responsibility to care beyond your own direct circle, because you have the ability to do so.
Jeroen: Did you speak a local language?
Michael: Oh yes, definitely. I completely lost it. If I think hard, I can still count to ten in Indonesian, but that’s it.
Jeroen: So please tell me more about how you grew up. You already mentioned a couple of things, but I’m curious: where was it? Brothers, sisters, what was the atmosphere like at home? I’m throwing in ten questions now, but what did your mother actually do? Because you didn’t say that, if I’m not mistaken. Just anything about how you grew up.
Michael: The situation in Indonesia was that my father was there primarily, but my mother was a teacher. I have a brother, Christian, who is four years older. My mother also took care of teaching him while we were there. She was a history teacher in the Netherlands before that.
She really took care of our upbringing. I have a very wise mother. I learned a lot from her: to listen, to engage with people, and to ask questions beyond the usual things. Later on, during my studies, I know friends of mine loved talking to my mother because she gave such good insights and reflections. So that has been pivotal.
Then we came back to the Netherlands. We moved house a couple of times because of my father.
Jeroen: Where was it geographically?
Michael: For the Dutch listeners: Oegstgeest, Leiden. Not too far from The Hague.
Jeroen: Exactly.
Michael: And then Utrecht, where my father was appointed at the University of Utrecht. That is where, in my memory, my mother said: we have moved house so many times now; this is where we are going to stay. So that is where I spent about nine years of my life: the last part of primary school and secondary school as well.
Jeroen: So you had this very wise mother, a history teacher, and your father was a professor of theology and a reverend. Was there a lot of discussion going on at home?
Michael: Oh yes, depending on the topic, we had lively discussions. Also because my older brother is a walking encyclopedia.
Jeroen: Is he a professor as well?
Michael: No, no. He has a PhD, which I don’t have. There is no regret in that one—maybe a little bit of jealousy.
So there was a very broad base at home. But we also, especially my brother and I, watched soccer, skating, and all the things you do when you’re 11, 15, and so on. Sports always played a big role in my life.
Jeroen: You went to high school, and you did the gymnasium, right? So you also did Greek and Latin?
Michael: Yes.
Jeroen: Were you more on the language side? Did you enjoy that more? Or were you more into science?
Michael: I was completely on the science side—the STEM side, as it is called internationally, or bèta as we call it here. Language is not my thing. I lost Indonesian. We went back on holiday, and after three weeks my wife spoke more Indonesian than I did. Very embarrassing, but that is what it is.
So I was on the hardcore technical side. That was also interesting because then I started working at Accenture and McKinsey. One of the reasons I stopped at McKinsey—beyond what I shared before—was that I felt the left side of my brain was being completely overstimulated.
I also studied Informatics/IT, so you think in zeros and ones. It was all rational. It was all very black and white from that perspective. That was also a reason to change. I think Triodos helped me tremendously in developing a much more integral, holistic view of things, beyond just the rational left-brain part.
Jeroen:Was it hard to explain to your mother, a history teacher, and your father, as I said, that you were going into IT and technology?
Michael: Luckily, my brother paved the way because he studied IT in Delft. But my parents were very open, and still are, to whatever I wanted to do. They stimulated and supported me, and my mother played a huge part in that. I am still very thankful for it.
Jeroen: And why Twente as a university, instead of following your brother? In the Netherlands, Delft is the biggest technical university, so that would make sense.
Michael: I went to the University of Twente for an open day, and it was just fantastic. As I said, I love sports. It has a campus setup, like in the US, and sports play a vital role in university life there. I was sold immediately.
I thought: okay, it is a longer journey. In the Netherlands, everything is small—it is less than two hours. Delft would have been 30 or 40 minutes. But from a Dutch perspective, two hours is a lot of travel. Still, I had the time of my life.
Jeroen: What kind of student were you?
Michael: I was lucky that I got my grades very easily, so I could do everything else next to it. I was at the sports facilities three or four days a week. During my time there, I tried almost everything.
I was on the board of the sports council. I was chairman of the volleyball club. I was even what you could call the mayor of the university facilities, because it is a campus setup, like a small municipality with its own council and that type of thing. For the university council, a friend of mine started a new party.
So we did everything you can possibly think of, next to making sure we got our grades and passed our classes.
Jeroen: What is one of your best memories? When you think back to your time as a student, do you think more about the serious stuff, or the partying, beer, or whatever?
Michael: There is so much, but the year with the sports council was the most impactful. Not least because two of the guys were my best men at my wedding, and vice versa. We still go skiing with that group. Our kids have gone on holiday together.
So yes, that was profound: both in terms of having fun, but also challenging each other, pushing each other to new limits, and really creating a bond for life. I am very grateful that this group—all guys, six of them, seven including me—is still very close.
Recently, when I was in my forest for some maintenance, four of the guys came to help me out. We worked together, and that was just fun to do. So it has been very impactful.
Jeroen: I have a bunch of notes about the forest, so I’ll come to that in a moment. But first: could you tell me how you got your first job? How did that go?
Also for people who are now in that stage of getting their first job: how did it work? Were you approached? Did you approach them? How did you decide not to go into IT, but into consulting?
Michael: The decision about where I wanted to go was based on the three internships I did. I very deliberately thought: I can now apply for a job, but I have no clue what it is really about. So let’s take a year off from my studies before I graduate and do three internships.
One in IT, one somewhere far away—in Australia, actually—to see whether I wanted to have the expat life, and one in consulting.
Jeroen: That is where you wrote the matrix.
Michael: Exactly. That is where I found out that I wanted to go into consulting. Then the question was: where?
So I applied quite broadly. One of my good friends, still a very good friend, was working at Accenture and said: this might be your place. I had an IT background and was interested in strategy, so we looked at both. Accenture gave me the opportunity to start there.
It was great. I had a very good time, but I found out that strategy was really my thing. Strategy was not really fully Accenture’s thing; it was much more McKinsey’s thing. So after one and a half years, I moved to McKinsey.
For Accenture and so on, I just applied. I had a good CV, so I got invited everywhere and had the opportunity to start there.
Jeroen: What is one of the most important things you had to learn as young Michael in his first job?
Michael: I think being proactive and stepping beyond your mandate or given responsibility makes a difference. You can do what you have been asked, or you can do what you have been asked and more. That made a difference, because otherwise you are just one of the pack, which is okay-ish.
It did not always go well. I had one project at Accenture where what I delivered was not good enough. That made me realize: what is not going well here? It brought me to the realization that I had to follow my own instinct and do more, instead of waiting for what was asked of me.
That really made a difference. I basically had a grading that was below par—not very great. But it made me realize I needed to change something. Then I got another opportunity, and things started flying.
Jeroen: Was there a particular person—you don’t need to name them—who steered you in that direction? Or was it more the realization that if you went on like this, you would stay average?
Michael: It was a combination of me realizing it and then getting an opportunity. Not someone who decided: I am going to mentor you. It was more someone, Peter Cunneman, who said: I have this opportunity. You look okay; can you just go and do it?
I thought: oh my goodness, okay. He was a partner. There was no manager in between. I was not even a senior consultant, but he trusted me and gave me the freedom.
Then I thought: freedom means he is not going to tell me what to do. So I could apply the notion of not waiting for someone to tell me what to do. I just did what I thought needed to be done. And that went flying.
After that, other opportunities started coming to me. Did I notice them? We can have a discussion about the universe—you just don’t know.
Jeroen: It is probably both.
Michael: Exactly.
Jeroen: But with this opportunity, there was no way to say no, right? You just had to do it? Or did you really have to decide: I’m going to jump on this, it’s scary, but I’m going to do it?
Michael: I would have had the opportunity to decline.
Jeroen: Okay, that’s really interesting, because this is what I’ve heard over and over again in these 200-plus interviews with CEOs: there is a moment in their careers when they could have said no, but they didn’t. They jumped, and it was a risk, but then the risk paid off.
Michael: Absolutely. And I think that also happened in the next situation, going from McKinsey to Triodos. It was a huge jump.
I am very thankful to the then CEO and CFO of Triodos for hiring this 33-year-old guy who did not have formal line management responsibilities, and giving him—me—the responsibility to run the whole IT and operations, including 24-hour retail operations, current accounts, the whole thing.
They took a risk, for which I am still thankful. I also took a risk, because did I know what I was going to do? Not really.
Jeroen: Was this typically Peter Blom, the CEO at that time, who had this idea that you could do this with this guy? Because it is quite a risk indeed.
Michael: Yes.
Jeroen: Short answer—very clear.
I wanted to ask one other thing about your Triodos time. The bank massively changed, right? In your time there and also after. Did that give you a lot of additional energy? There was so much growth going on, et cetera.
Michael: Yes, absolutely. It was interesting to see that whenever the big banks made a bit of a reputational mistake, we would have a huge number of applications for bank accounts the day after. That also gave us the notion that we were on the right track.
I made the move from McKinsey to Triodos a year before the financial crisis hit. I had to explain to my McKinsey colleagues what Triodos Bank was: where are you going, what type of bank is this?
With my McKinsey background, I could have joined ING, ABN AMRO, or at that time Fortis. I also worked with Jos Baeten, whom you mentioned before at a.s.r. So there were many opportunities, but I made a very deliberate choice to go to Triodos Bank, although nobody really knew what it was at that time. So there was some risk in that as well.
Jeroen: I read a couple of times in my preparation for this interview about your net-zero family statement. So enlighten me: what is it? And what does it have to do with a forest in the province of Limburg here in the Netherlands?
Michael: When I was at Bain as a partner, working with bigger banks and basically telling them to go to net zero at some point—rather sooner than later—I realized that I was not actually practicing what I was preaching.
Then I started realizing: how can I continue if I am not net zero myself? I had already brought down my footprint by not eating beef, driving an electric car, and doing all the regular things. I tried to go beyond that. We also had our own house built in 2010, which is very sustainable. But you still have a footprint.
So I calculated that footprint using a couple of key indicators. I thought: okay, I want to compensate this. How do you compensate the last mile? By planting trees.
I calculated my remaining footprint and then the remaining footprint of my little family—my wife and two children—every year. Then I calculated how much CO₂ is captured by a growing tree, which type of trees, and so on. In Europe, that is completely different from Africa, I can tell you.
So I looked at European forest, the number of trees per square metre, and all that. I calculated how many hectares I needed to buy. Of course, I was lucky to have the financial means, having worked at Bain as a partner for a while.
Then I got this plot. It is about four and a half hectares: 200 metres by 250 metres. It is big enough to get a little bit lost, and it is fantastic. It makes me and my little family cumulatively net zero by 2030.
That also helped me convince some of these CEOs: I am not here as just a commercial Bain partner. I know what I am talking about because I worked at Triodos Bank, and that was recognized. But I am also personally committed to making this difference.
It is not just a nice commercial story. People felt how intrinsically motivated I was to do this, which I think also helped get a couple of projects across the line.
Jeroen:Did everyone applaud it, or were there people saying: Michael, it really doesn’t matter how many trees you plant; you should just fly less and be better for the environment instead of trying to compensate things?
Michael: Of course. It is an ongoing dilemma, also within FMO. We work in emerging markets, and we fly there. Every trip needs to be validated from the perspective of whether we are really making enough impact to justify the CO₂ emissions. That is not always easy, to be honest.
Privately, we have also started scaling back our holidays. We stay much more in the region, in Europe, and travel by electric car. You try to find that balance. Again, it is not easy.
Some people frowned and looked like: are you serious? But more than that, it inspired people to think: I am also a CEO, I can make a personal difference, and it is also role-modelling.
So yes, it is a bit of both. But luckily, much more on the inspiring side than on the sceptical side.
Jeroen: That’s great. And a couple of very concrete questions about the forest, because it’s intriguing, right? Someone buying four and a half hectares. First of all, what was the land before? Was it already forest, or was it something else?
Michael: It was forest. So on the one hand, the forest keeps growing. You could say: it would already have been growing there anyway. So you can have that whole debate. We are planting some extra trees in it, because part of the forest is still a bit open.
Jeroen: Have you given your mini forest a name?
Michael: Not the Limburg one, no. That’s a good question. We had some names, but nothing really stuck. This house has a name, you might have seen it, but not the forest.
Jeroen: Do you think you will put the forest in a trust at some point, so it will be there forever?
Michael: Yes, I’m thinking about it, but I have not materialized that yet. It’s a really interesting idea.
And why Limburg? Basically, that was opportunity-driven. I would have loved to have something closer by. It is a one-and-a-half-hour drive. Again, for the Netherlands, that is a lot. Internationally, it is kind of nothing. So it is doable to drive up and down.
There is not that much forest becoming available closer to Utrecht, Amsterdam, or The Hague. It is just not there, which is a pity in itself.
If you want to buy a piece of grassland and convert it into forest, grassland is seven times more expensive than forest. I have been looking at subsidies and so on, but I also have a day job, and it is a bit hard to combine everything. So that is for later.
Jeroen: Maybe it is going to be the Net Zero Family and Nature Reserve or something.
Michael: That’s a long name.
Jeroen: A very practical title instead of a very poetic one.
Anyway, we have a couple of things that always come back in our interviews. One of them is the five unusual questions. Maybe you have already answered some of them. If you think you did, then we can go to the next one.
First of all, the one you may have already answered: what has been the scariest moment of your life? Maybe that was your wife, I assume, but maybe not.
Michael: Yes, that was it by far.
Jeroen: By far. So we can skip that one.
Is there a famous person you admire? I underline famous, because you already told me about your mother as a wise person you clearly admire. There is a piece in the Financial Times.
Michael: Nelson Mandela.
Jeroen: Sorry, yes. You already have the answer.
Michael: Very simply, because I also wrote a LinkedIn post about him recently after my visit to Cape Town. The man was in jail for 27 years and came out with a forgiving mindset. Then he changed South Africa in the way he did. That is super inspiring.
I could not imagine myself being in jail for 27 years and then forgiving the people who locked me up for 27 years. Impressive.
Jeroen: Almost superhuman, right?
Michael: Yes, it is really impressive.
Jeroen: You never met him, I guess?
Michael: No, unfortunately, I never met him in real life.
Jeroen: Another somewhat unusual question: you are given, let’s say, €200 million. With some guests on this podcast, I have had to raise it to €200 billion, because some people at my table actually own that. But maybe in your case €200 million would be fine, or let’s pick €2 billion—whatever you want.
You receive it today in your personal account. The catch is that you have to spend it within a few weeks. What would you spend it on?
Michael: I need to spend €200 million in a couple of weeks?
Jeroen: Or €2 billion. You can also spend it on yourself, charity, or whatever, but you have to spend it.
Michael: That’s very simple. I would buy degraded land and convert it into biodiverse forestry, wherever it would be available.
Degraded land can be anywhere. I also wrote a LinkedIn post a couple of months ago. I was in India, where Rohit from Eversource is converting degraded land into a biodiversity hub. It is fantastic. He is doing it on four and a half hectares as well. Very inspiring. I would definitely do something like that on a big scale.
Jeroen: How long does it take before degraded land actually becomes not degraded?
Michael: A couple of years, depending on the situation.
Jeroen: That is not that long, actually, right?
Michael: It depends. In the Netherlands, things do not grow that fast. If you are more in India or in the right parts of Africa—not in the Sahara—things go much faster.
Jeroen: Do you have a somewhat unusual hobby, or something special you do in your free time that we are not aware of?
Michael: The land delivery is definitely one.
Jeroen: Is there something else that is a bit unusual?
Michael: I still play indoor soccer in the veterans’ competition at the age of 52. That is not unusual, but it is really fun to do.
Jeroen: What do you spend most of your free time on? Maybe not something unusual, but I assume you still work a lot with this job.
Michael: Yes, and the travel is quite intense. Then I spend time with my family, with the forest, a bit of reading, and of course with friends. So nothing that special anymore.
Jeroen: The last somewhat unusual question is: if you were able to reverse one decision from the past, what would it be, or what would you do differently?
Michael: Going on holiday to the Canary Islands when my wife was 28 weeks pregnant. That is the story of the birth of my second child.
That is one thing I would change. I actively advise people who are pregnant: do not travel anymore after, say, 20 weeks. Make sure you always have a very good hospital close by, because things can go wrong.
We also recently saw something in my surroundings, and that is painful. The result is fantastic, because my son is now 20, he is a great guy, and I am super proud of him. But those were also scary times. A little less scary than the other one, but pretty close.
Especially because he was lost at some point. When he was a couple of hours old, he had to fly to the next island, and I travelled after him because I could not join the same plane. I got to the hospital where he was supposed to be on that second island, and the people at the hospital told me: he is not here.
That cost me a couple of grey hairs. You can see that I am bald. But yes, that was intense.
Jeroen: That is very intense. So it is both the scariest question in a way and also the decision you would reverse.
Michael: That was the other thought, indeed.
Jeroen: Thank you so much for sharing.
The other thing we always ask every single guest on this podcast is: first of all, do you like to read? And if so—or if not—is there a particular book you would like to share?
Michael: Depending on your taste, The Untethered Soul by Michael A. Singer is something I would definitely recommend.
Jeroen: What is it about?
Michael:
It is a lot about expectations in life, about how you deal with past events, how past events can still influence your being, what they do to you, how you find that out, and then how to deal with it.
Jeroen: I am just looking it up right now. I have never heard of the book. It sounds really interesting.
Any other title you would like to share? Do you read a lot, by the way?
Michael: Unfortunately, I do not read a lot anymore. In the same sphere, there is The Power of Now, which a lot of people know. That is why I mentioned the other book, because it is less known.
Jeroen: Thank you for sharing. We will add them to the long list of books. There are some books that come back more often, and some are new. The first one was definitely new. The second one has been mentioned before, as you said.
The last thing we always ask is: do you have a tip, or tips, for people starting their career today? It could be to the younger Michael, or to anyone starting today at FMO or anywhere else.
Michael: Take enough time to reflect.
Jeroen: How do you do that?
Michael:
Make sure to block parts of your calendar. I do both mini-reflections and larger reflections. For the larger ones, every four years or so, I take a week off and go somewhere else, preferably to the middle of nowhere.
About three days a year, I also have my own away day.
Jeroen:
And you schedule that a year in advance?
Michael: Yes, or half a year in advance. But also during the weekend or even during the day: do not just keep running. Otherwise, after five years, you look back and think: how consciously did I make my choices? Do I actually understand how I made my choices?
So reflect on what you do, why you do it, and set time aside for that reflection. It does not come out of thin air.
Jeroen: Is this something you look forward to? Or is it also painful because you need to go back to a slower pace and be alone?
Michael: It is great. I look forward to it very much. Of course, sometimes you have painful realizations. You look back and think: but that is part of learning. If you do not do that…
Jeroen: And then you actually act upon it?
Michael: Yes, sure. New Year’s resolutions are something I do not do anymore, because I change when I think I need to change. I am not going to wait until the 1st of January.
Jeroen: That is great. It is also a great segue into your retreat, because you do these few days every year, but you also did a Vipassana retreat in Nepal for ten days, if I am not mistaken, which is super intense.
Michael: Yes, and that is something I would not recommend to everybody. You really need to be ready for it.
Jeroen: When are you ready?
Michael: Let me describe a bit what happens. For the first nine days of the ten days, you only meditate. You have zero interaction with anyone. You are not even allowed to look people in the eye.
So you are on your own. You meditate for 10 to 12 hours a day. It starts at 4 a.m., if I recall correctly. It is extremely intense. If you need interaction with people, this is not something you should do. And if you cannot sit still for two hours in a row, you should not do it.
I have done a couple of trips with FNL Leadership Trails in South Africa. Those are much more accessible. I would definitely recommend those to anybody. But Vipassana is really hardcore meditation.
Jeroen: Could you say you enjoyed it? Or is that too much? Is it something you are happy you did, but during it, it was terrible?
Michael: During it, it was quite painful. Physically, it is really a stretch. So, exactly as you said, I would not say I enjoyed it, but I am very, very happy that I did it.
I did it when I was 27, so a little before these life-changing things happened, as we discussed, which were scary. Circling back to the start of this conversation, it grounded me very much.
Even my father, the reverend, once said to me: I have no clue how you are able to manoeuvre through these scary things.
I know my upbringing helped, but this hardcore Vipassana meditation retreat also helped me to ground myself, feel who I am, why I am who I am, and who I want to be.
Jeroen: This could have been a great end to the podcast, but I still have a couple of final things I wanted to ask. It is such a great circle back to where we started, with your father. But I would still really like to do a couple of things.
One is looking into the future, which is the hardest thing for everyone. Are there particular things, when you reflect, that you would love to do in the longer term? As you said, you just started your second term, so the focus is clearly on FMO and running the business there. But in the longer run, if everything goes Deo volente, as they say, are there particular things you would like to do?
Michael: Let me start by saying that I think I have the best job in the Netherlands. So I am very happy in what I am doing. What I will be doing is a continuation of what I am doing.
The only completely different thing I have been thinking about is the rise of artificial intelligence. Having an IT background, I have been following that for a long time already. I think there is huge risk in it. There are a lot of benefits as well, but there is also huge risk in artificial intelligence.
I wrote a LinkedIn post about this too. In the far, far future—I took a position of 200 years from now—artificially intelligent robots will dominate human beings like human beings now dominate chimpanzees. Potentially doing something in that area…
Jeroen: Do you think that will happen, or do you think there is a chance it will happen?
Michael: I am pretty sure that it will happen. I am afraid we, as human beings, will not be able to stop it. We can regulate a lot, but if you make a sidestep to nuclear, you need a lot of resources, both money and natural resources, to build a nuclear plant and then get to nuclear weapons. But cybersecurity is much less capital-intensive.
So wherever people have an evil idea to take control, and then think they can still control AI, we already see now that we do not have control over it. It is too much of a black box.
Again, I am very optimistic about what AI can do. But from a long-term perspective, I do not see why it would not happen, unfortunately.
Jeroen: It is not a great future, if you take it from that perspective.
Michael: That is true. Only if we are all able to make a change in that development together, then the future is brighter.
Jeroen: We do not have a great track record as human beings on that front.
Michael: No, correct.
Jeroen: Our CV is not made for these kinds of challenges so far, at least. Although you could argue we are doing much better than 2,000 years ago.
Michael: Yes, it depends on how you look at it. Maybe we go to a completely different civilization.
Jeroen: Back to my initial question: does that mean you would like to do something in the AI space? Thinking about ethical AI or something like that? I am just suggesting something here.
Michael: Exactly. If I were to discontinue my current trajectory in sustainable finance, then this would be it. Otherwise, it would probably be a continuation, further deepening, or further broadening in that sphere. That would be the usual expectation.
So I am putting something next to it in the spirit of unusual questions or unusual answers.
Jeroen: But it is unlikely that you would go into a more commercial place again, if McKinsey asked you to become a partner there? Because you went back and forth a couple of times.
Michael: Never say never, because I always look at how I can make the most impact. That is very difficult to measure. In the end, it is also a bit of a gut feeling.
If there were a commercial opportunity that would really make a difference, then yes. But it will always be in the spirit of win-win-win and the third win.
So it is never going to be a purely commercial opportunity, like joining a hardcore hedge fund or doing high-frequency trading. That is just impossible.
Jeroen: Clear.
Last two questions. One is: you do a lot of thinking. You have very interesting thoughts, in my view. Have you ever thought about starting a column in NRC or FD every two weeks? Some thinking—you already kind of do it on LinkedIn. So why not for a major Dutch newspaper, or an international newspaper for that matter?
Michael: I have never thought about it, actually.
Jeroen: So here is my thinking.
Michael: Yes, I hear you. The great thing now is that if I have a thought, I just write something about it. I am not forced to have a thought every two weeks.
Sometimes you have people who write interesting columns, but not every time. Then you think: okay, not so much inspiration this week. Bad luck. And I am not a professional writer.
Jeroen: Last question. It has always been the same. I have covered a lot. I was allowed to ask many, many questions, from personal to business. You answered everything. But is there something we should have discussed that we can still discuss now?
Michael: Not really, I think. As you said, there is always more. But the essence I wanted to convey has been covered.
I think the notion of thinking beyond your own interest. The win-win. The win-win-win. Making sure to reflect on life as a tip for others. The combination of how your personal life influences your work life, and how vulnerability is actually a strength and can unlock a lot of potential that is still hidden.
There is much more. We are all human beings. I think we need to see each other much more as human beings who are all trying to do something we think is good. But which perspective do we apply? The broader perspective, the more loving perspective, the better.
Jeroen: Michael, thank you so much for taking so much time to speak to me and to the Leaders in Finance podcast. I highly enjoyed this.
Just a couple of observations. I could speak for hours about my observations from this interview. I think listeners have heard from my voice and how I responded to things that I highly enjoyed it.
This podcast is called Leaders in Finance. Well, we definitely covered the leadership part. We also covered the finance part. And the tagline is: the person, the human behind success. We clearly covered that as well. So for me, that is three boxes ticked. Thank you so much for that.
I think you have such a rich life. It is really amazing how you combine the super-rational, very clear, factual thinking—how the money is dealt with, how you run the organization, and so on—with all this reflection and thinking about what life really is. I would almost call that more philosophical. The way you combine those two is quite unique.
I really enjoyed that. As you put it well: the left and the right brain need to be somewhat balanced to live a rich life.
Those are my observations. I am very thankful for this conversation. I have a small present for you afterwards, to put my money where my mouth is.
So thank you so much, Michael Jongeneel, CEO of FMO, for joining me today at Leaders in Finance.
Michael: Thank you very much for inviting me. I enjoyed the conversation very much, and I hope the people listening enjoyed it too.