Ingrid Faber and Jan Nooitgedagt on public-private partnerships: ‘Improvement is often simple’

How do you experience public-private collaboration?
Nooitgedagt: ‘The government’s role is becoming increasingly significant, and I welcome that. The risks entrepreneurs face are sometimes too significant to bear alone. The government can play a crucial role here.’
Faber: ‘I am optimistic about the government’s role. In general, they do a good job of outlining the bigger picture. Consider the sustainability regulations, for example. These are clear, and I fully support their intent. A requirement like the CSRD reporting from Brussels makes perfect sense to me. However, my biggest concern lies in implementation. That is where things often go wrong. Regulations are frequently developed by people who do not understand the practical realities. For example, smaller companies see their accounting costs double because of CSRD—surely that was not the intent. Our company also faces challenges with regulations related to the circular economy. Pallets can be reused easily but are harder to recycle. As a result, we perform poorly on recycling metrics, even though this is a system flaw. Yet, we are still judged by it.’
Nooitgedagt: ‘The Netherlands also tends to go beyond Brussels’ legislation. Strict rules from Europe are made even stricter in The Hague. That is unnecessary and often a waste of time. Just stick to the European rules, especially if you want to view Europe as a single market.’

Government and business interactions often center around regulations. Ingrid, you mentioned that these rules do not always align with reality. How can this be improved?
Faber: ‘Consider the Scope 1, 2, and 3 frameworks. I fully support them, but they do not really fit our sector. Our business model has relatively low CO₂ emissions in Scope 1 and 2, while most of our emissions fall under Scope 3, stemming from purchasing pallets and transport. However, our load carrier rental system prevents significant CO₂ emissions for our clients by replacing single-use pallets with our pooling system. This avoided CO₂ impact cannot currently be offset in our sustainability reports, even though it has a real impact on the planet. We should introduce a Scope 4 to account for avoided CO₂ emissions for customers.’
Nooitgedagt: ‘As an accountant, I always embraced regulations. It was what generated our work. But still, you must wonder whether there are too many rules. They cost a lot of money, but what do they achieve? Only time will tell what, if anything, these regulations contributed.’

What would you specifically like to tackle with the government?
Faber: ‘I once approached the Dutch government to collaborate on sustainable forestry policies, proposing a national forest or wood plan. There is considerable untapped potential for forestry in the Netherlands, which could also help capture CO₂. But this idea is virtually impossible here due to practical issues. Areas for forestation, for instance, often fall under the jurisdiction of municipalities, whose tree policies often do not extend beyond the nuisance of autumn leaves in neighborhoods. Elevating this to a broader policy level is incredibly challenging.’

What is lacking in government?
Nooitgedagt: ‘What I miss in government is a vision for the direction we want to take as a country. There is no overarching strategy for the type of industry the Netherlands should aim to have in the future. I notice this in my role as chair at Invest-NL. We currently invest in 50 companies. This is facilitated by the government, which is very positive. However, the actual strategic choices are left almost entirely to us. We must decide which companies we believe will be essential in the future. This could be done much more collaboratively. I think the government should articulate a clear vision for where we are headed.’
Faber: ‘Legislation is still primarily based on a linear economy. The concept of waste is central, instead of product reuse. This is evident in packaging regulations, for instance. It would be better if the government adopted a more circular mindset, such as creating incentives for collaboration within sectors to promote product reuse.’
Nooitgedagt: ‘Take the Lelylijn, the railway connection between the Randstad and the northern provinces, which has been debated for 30 years. For three decades now, we have agreed that it is a sensible project—for traffic, the environment, and the development of the North. Yet funding remains a stumbling block. The risks are simply too significant for the market. That is precisely when the government needs to step in and take decisive action.’

Why does true public-private collaboration fail to take off?
Faber: ‘I still detect considerable distrust from politicians toward the private sector. The stereotype persists that we are all greedy scrooges trying to pocket as much money as possible. That is a misconception. I believe most people in the private sector are well-intentioned and care deeply about the planet. Family businesses are often misunderstood. It too often happens that they are compared to companies in TV shows like Succession, where children squander the wealth of previous generations. But that could not be further from the truth. We work incredibly hard for our companies and feel a strong sense of social responsibility.’
Nooitgedagt: ‘Dutch companies universally adhere to the stakeholder model—there are virtually no exceptions. The government is always one of those stakeholders and, in many cases, the most important one. However, for businesses, dealing with ‘the government’ can be challenging because it is not always clear who you are dealing with. After the nationalization of SNS Reaal, as chair of the supervisory board, I had to interact with ‘the government,’ which turned out to mean the Dutch House of Representatives in particular. Their primary focus was on the remuneration policy. ‘The government’ clearly considered that more important than the bank’s strategy.’

Is the solution in more and better collaboration?
Faber: ‘If politicians collaborated with business to a greater extent, it could lead to significant progress. In my opinion politicians should listen to us more. Engage in discussions to understand the pitfalls before announcing legislation. I would love to contribute to drafting circular economy regulations. We can provide valuable insights into broader issues. For example, our company knows the entire supply chain inside out—so ask us the questions.
In the past, I participated in a project where entrepreneurs were paired with politicians. I partnered with the late D66 MP Gerrit Ybema. He visited my company a few times per quarter, and I accompanied him to The Hague. It was incredibly useful—for both of us. I would fully support a similar initiative being revived.’
Nooitgedagt: ‘Often, things can be improved in simple ways. The government has over 25 state-owned enterprises. If these companies collaborated more effectively and regularly consulted with each other, much could be achieved in industrial and business policy, almost effortlessly.’
Faber: ‘The Netherlands was once known for its ‘polder model,’ but that approach has fallen out of favor. I would like to see a modern version of it—not the old system of sitting down and making occasional compromises, but poldering to identify long-term solutions.’

The Netherlands operates in an international context. Can we learn from other countries?
Faber: ‘I often consult with family businesses in Germany, and I feel they are ahead of us. In Germany, the responsibility to support and advance family businesses lies explicitly with the finance minister. In the Netherlands, it is almost the opposite. Here, we are discussing abolishing the Business Succession Regulation (BOR). If that happens, it will be a massive threat to Dutch family businesses. The proposals of some political parties on the transferring of family businesses to the next generation are truly disastrous.
I am also concerned about the Netherlands’ position. Processes are far more streamlined in the U.S. and China. In China, economic strategy is approached far more strategically than here. They are much faster to make impactful strategic decisions. We could learn from that.  Brussels’ process of formulating regulations alone is already incredibly slow. The process to finalize rules takes ages—easily five years. We will never win the proverbial race against the U.S. and China at this pace.’ 

Is there enough interaction between government, business, and education?
Nooitgedagt: ‘When I graduated in Groningen years ago, I wanted nothing to do with the government. It was not until I became chair of the Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten’s supervisory board at 55 that I began to see the value of such institutions. The gap between business and government has always baffled me. We need more cross-pollination and collaboration. In countries like the U.S., it is more common for professionals to switch between government and the private sector during their careers. That should happen in the Netherlands as well.’
Faber: ‘We need to break down silos. There should be more rotation between education, politics, and the private sector. In Germany, they have the Fachhochschule—like our universities of applied sciences. There, internships are not a three-month period; students spend one or two days a week at a company throughout their education. If every student were exposed to a company over a period of four years, we would automatically have better cross-pollination between education and business.’

Are you ultimately optimistic or pessimistic about the future of public-private collaboration?
Faber: ‘I am an optimist by nature and remain hopeful. I have huge confidence in the Netherlands, though that confidence is sometimes tested. I am worried about recent political developments. Dutch politics tends to focus too much on irrelevant matters. Let us use our time wisely and tackle real challenges.’
Nooitgedagt: ‘We Dutch can be incredibly stubborn. I am reading a book about the history of the Frisians. At one point, they controlled territory from France to Denmark but never managed to unite those regions. Why? Because no one wanted to accept the rule of someone else. That mentality is typical of the Netherlands. But sometimes, you must let someone take the lead. The government needs to take control and provide direction.
At the same time, businesses and the government need to collaborate better—at all levels. I still believe the Netherlands has a fantastic starting position. If we make the right decisions. As former CFO I should probably not say this, but we should not declare numbers sacred. Cutting higher education budgets might balance the books, but is it smart? We must continue to invest. Investing in the future needs to be possible, always. That is my motto.’

This interview was published in Management Scope 01 2025.