Speaker 1: Welcome to In the City, Bloomberg's podcast, connecting you to
Speaker 1: the conversations and the stories shaping the world of finance.
Speaker 1: I'm David Merritt, and this week we bring in the
Speaker 1: second part of our conversation with Paul Pullman. Paul was
Speaker 1: the chief executive officer of Unilever for a decade from
Speaker 1: twenty and nine to twenty nineteen. Before that, he worked
Speaker 1: for Procter and Gamble and Nesle. We asked Paul about
Speaker 1: his experience leading Unilever, one of the world's biggest consumer
Speaker 1: goods companies, and also his commitment to proving that putting
Speaker 1: a sense of moral purpose and sustainability front and center
Speaker 1: could actually be a more profitable way to run a business.
Speaker 2: Paul, you were in charge of Unilever for ten years.
Speaker 2: You've had to make decisions and the longer term. On
Speaker 2: a short term, how difficult just is it to be
Speaker 2: a chief executives? Like, how do you when you realize
Speaker 2: what you're worth? Is it in a crisis or in
Speaker 2: the long term kind of motivation of the troops?
Speaker 3: Well, it's probably both, And in fact it's a very
Speaker 3: difficult job in the sense that you have to be
Speaker 3: promoted into that job without really having ever done it,
Speaker 3: and yet the skill sets that are needed for that
Speaker 3: job are quite different. So when I became CEO, I
Speaker 3: wasn't feeling as comfortable and as confident as I would
Speaker 3: normally feel. And there are very few people you can
Speaker 3: reach out to and very few people that can help
Speaker 3: contextually in a situation like that, especially when you come
Speaker 3: into a company you've not worked before and you don't
Speaker 3: fully understand how it functions, and yet everybody expects you
Speaker 3: to immediately come with the oracle of Delphi and make
Speaker 3: the right decisions and the one hundred day plan. I've
Speaker 3: always personally objected to that, but it's difficult.
Speaker 1: So did you feel what you've felt a little bit
Speaker 1: of what imposter syndrome when you started?
Speaker 4: I definitely.
Speaker 3: Said to the board that there are better people than
Speaker 3: me to take that job, and I actually gave them
Speaker 3: names to interview.
Speaker 4: Two thousand and eight.
Speaker 3: So definitely I wasn't looking for a CEO job day
Speaker 3: because you know, it's all serendipity, and your predecessor needs
Speaker 3: to leave, the board needs to look it's always better
Speaker 3: to have an internal candidate that wasn't there. So this
Speaker 3: is a lot of serendipity, and my name was in
Speaker 3: the papers because I didn't get the job at at
Speaker 3: Nestley at that time. They gave it to a lifer
Speaker 3: Paul book at that time. So that's why I headhunters.
Speaker 4: How long?
Speaker 1: How long did it take you to sale? Like on
Speaker 1: top of the job, But you know, I.
Speaker 3: Don't think you'll ever be because you always have to
Speaker 3: be sharp. The moment you feel you're on top of
Speaker 3: the job, where you become relaxed, I think it's time
Speaker 3: to move on, and some CEOs and my signal for
Speaker 3: that with other CEOs is when they start talking about
Speaker 3: all the wonderful things they've done, then it's really it's.
Speaker 4: Really time to go. So you have to be no.
Speaker 3: I think the most important skill sets that you have,
Speaker 3: that you always need to have and also in terms
Speaker 3: of crisis, is to have a high moral compass. And
Speaker 3: it's not surprising that the first thing I did was
Speaker 3: reads out to Bill George, who was the chairman of
Speaker 3: Metronics but now teachers at Harvard had written a book
Speaker 3: what was called two Norse find your own purpose, Find
Speaker 3: your own you know what makes you tick. I don't
Speaker 3: believe you can be a purpose driven company or a
Speaker 3: sustainable company if you're not purposeful or sustainable yourself.
Speaker 4: EAD So I worked with him to.
Speaker 3: Work with the five hundred top leaders at un for
Speaker 3: at that time, I had an other hidden agenda. I
Speaker 3: needed to understand these five hundred people because they were
Speaker 3: going to be the key people I needed to rely
Speaker 3: on in terms of building our new strategy. So it
Speaker 3: gave me a year actually to think about the strategy,
Speaker 3: but also to collectively work on what the purpose of
Speaker 3: this company should be, because we clearly had lost it
Speaker 3: and that was a very powerful thing. But the leadership skills,
Speaker 3: I think are evolving, but the basic leadership skills that
Speaker 3: you need to run these companies will always say the same.
Speaker 2: But Paul, when you talk about purpose, I mean, does
Speaker 2: it have to be good purpose or can the purpose.
Speaker 5: Also just be making money keeping shareholders having making money,
Speaker 5: which is true.
Speaker 3: For many that operate under that way. But let me
Speaker 3: remind you that the average tenure of a CEO has
Speaker 3: now dropped to four and a half years. Let me
Speaker 3: remind you that when I was born, the average length
Speaker 3: of a publicly traded company's existence for sixty seven years.
Speaker 3: Now it's seventeen years. I think we've shown that the
Speaker 3: Milton treatment period, which was disguised by many other things,
Speaker 3: is more destructive for society now than we thought. That
Speaker 3: the single minded pursuit of shareholder primacy doesn't really work.
Speaker 3: The graveyard of companies that pursue that strategy is absolutely
Speaker 3: full of that. So increasingly we can show that companies
Speaker 3: that work multi stakeholder longer term, who purpose at the core,
Speaker 3: have at least a better opportunity to get a better return,
Speaker 3: And I think that's increasingly the model the financial market now. Interestingly,
Speaker 3: there are more people now in the financial market trying
Speaker 3: to encourage companies to be more longer term than the
Speaker 3: companies themselves are. So it's this notion that it's the
Speaker 3: financial market that puts that pressure on you. I would
Speaker 3: actually even challenge right now. There are some elements of
Speaker 3: the financial market that put pressure on you, but you
Speaker 3: don't always have to give in to those. You know,
Speaker 3: if you let your unile eve at over one hundred
Speaker 3: thousand decent shareholders, if you want to call it that way,
Speaker 3: if you would listen to all the shareholders and do
Speaker 3: what they were asking you to do, your company would
Speaker 3: be bankrupt before you knew it.
Speaker 1: I mean you've spoken about the need for that sort
Speaker 1: of moral compass as a kind of imperative increasingly now
Speaker 1: to attract staff as well, because otherwise people increasingly will
Speaker 1: make decisions about who they want to work for depending
Speaker 1: on that north star, that moral compass. And that's a shift,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Now, that's a generational show.
Speaker 3: Well, we've seen a big shift, David, and it's actually
Speaker 3: a generational shift, but not as big as the shift itself,
Speaker 3: if I may say. In one of my foundations, we
Speaker 3: ran a study amongst four thousand people in the US
Speaker 3: and Europe, and what we found was that two thouirds
Speaker 3: of the people now select companies. Of course they want
Speaker 3: good pay and be competitive and take care of their families.
Speaker 3: That goes by itself. Two thirds of the people that
Speaker 3: were looking for jobs wanted to work for companies with
Speaker 3: a bigger purpose. People want more. They wanted to make
Speaker 3: a bigger difference in life they than just getting a salary,
Speaker 3: and that's a key driver.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 3: Now, interestingly, thirty percent of the people we interviewed had
Speaker 3: deliberately left a company because they couldn't find that purpose.
Speaker 3: And sixty percent of the people we interviewed were actually
Speaker 3: considering leaving the company. Half of them didn't have confidence
Speaker 3: in the CEO. They said the talk and the walk
Speaker 3: were not the same. So in this survey, we call
Speaker 3: for higher ambitions of companies. We call for better communication
Speaker 3: than transparency, but we also for giving higher agency to
Speaker 3: the people in the companies to be part of that transition.
Speaker 3: So we call it conscious quitting. And that's probably a
Speaker 3: new trend. You are right that you see it go
Speaker 3: up when you get from the baby boomers to the millennials,
Speaker 3: to the Gen zs and the Gen Vice. You see
Speaker 3: the numbers going up, and generations now is ten years.
Speaker 3: By the way, it's not a generation the way we
Speaker 3: thought about it. Their loyalty to companies has also shortened.
Speaker 3: For each of those generations, it's now less than two
Speaker 3: years because they clearly can't find what they're looking for
Speaker 3: in these companies.
Speaker 1: Are they just being unrealistic? I mean the idea that
Speaker 1: they're not.
Speaker 3: At all know Liver we put purpose right in the
Speaker 3: middle and created the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan. We saw
Speaker 3: our engagement scores go up from the bottom tursile when
Speaker 3: the company was not doing so well, to the top
Speaker 3: of the top tursile of eight thousand companies. We became
Speaker 3: the third most loucted company in LinkedIn, after Google and Apple.
Speaker 3: And we are not a company named. Unilever is an
Speaker 3: abstract name. The products are much better known, so no,
Speaker 3: we we really see that as a driver. In fact,
Speaker 3: I want to make a point there because it comes
Speaker 3: to mind. In twenty fifteen, sixteen or so, I was
Speaker 3: in a meeting here in London somewhere and the financial
Speaker 3: people from the city were saying, we cannot attract talent.
Speaker 3: So I thought it was strange because in Lever we
Speaker 3: had an attraction into more talent than we could deal
Speaker 3: with and was another problem. We didn't have any turnover
Speaker 3: in the company either, because nobody wanted to leave the company.
Speaker 4: This is another problem.
Speaker 3: But the people in the financial market were saying, oh,
Speaker 3: we have such a hard time attracting talent because all
Speaker 3: of a sudden there's pay restrains. Are you know my
Speaker 3: bonuses are being looked at? So I asked our people,
Speaker 3: I said, in my office, literally I was at Blackfriars
Speaker 3: where Unilever's officers are. I literally look out over the city.
Speaker 3: I said, just give me the numbers of the bonuses
Speaker 3: that these people were getting that year in the city.
Speaker 3: And what did we find That the bonuses of the
Speaker 3: city alone were bigger than the total salary bill of Unilever.
Speaker 3: And that's one hundred seventy five thousand employees trying to
Speaker 3: change the world. That's the power of purpose. If you
Speaker 3: say I can't attract people, you have to wonder why
Speaker 3: it's not because of salary. You can't solve everything by
Speaker 3: throwing money at it. I think that's proven to be
Speaker 3: the case in many things.
Speaker 2: But how do you motivate people?
Speaker 4: Then you do.
Speaker 3: Motivate people by making them part of something bigger than
Speaker 3: they can be themselves. Obviously, you want to invest in people,
Speaker 3: you want to recognize people, but above all, people.
Speaker 4: Want to be long. They want to be part of.
Speaker 1: So that's high. That's more important than Hey.
Speaker 3: No, there are always minimum conditions. It's like it's like
Speaker 3: your products you sell. Your products you sell need to perform,
Speaker 3: they need to taste good, otherwise why buy them. But
Speaker 3: then once you've done this minimal hurdle, people will put
Speaker 3: the will make a choice for the companies that they respect,
Speaker 3: for the products that are more sustainable. So most of
Speaker 3: these discussions are always people don't want to pay for
Speaker 3: sustainable products. It's just the wrong discussion. So we need
Speaker 3: to be able to provide the minimum competitiveness. But it's
Speaker 3: not just throwing money at it. At Unaliver, we certainly
Speaker 3: didn't see anybody leave during my ten year ten yure
Speaker 3: few exceptions, but not anybody leave. But yet everybody could
Speaker 3: have worked for another company and earn more, but they
Speaker 3: were part.
Speaker 4: Of a mission.
Speaker 3: Collectively, they were able to do things that they wouldn't
Speaker 3: be able to do by themselves. That was important enough
Speaker 3: to them, you know, reaching one point three billion people
Speaker 3: improving their health and well being, even with simple things
Speaker 3: like bar soaps where we did hand washing campaigns that
Speaker 3: literally saved millions of live a year. That's what motivated people.
Speaker 3: Trying to address the poverty that is under the farmer community.
Speaker 3: Usually the farmers are the ones that actually go to
Speaker 3: bed hungry.
Speaker 2: Believe it or not, Well, how do you communicate that?
Speaker 2: So did you spend a lot in internal communications?
Speaker 5: Because a lot of the times you can have a
Speaker 5: chief executives that has great ideas, you know a lot
Speaker 5: of kind of fire and the ability to change things,
Speaker 5: but the person way at the bottom of the chain
Speaker 5: may not know that.
Speaker 2: So you have to make sure that a good message
Speaker 2: goes across the board.
Speaker 3: Oh absolutely, So obviously you have your fission that you communicate,
Speaker 3: but that many companies do. The challenge is how do
Speaker 3: you make it come alive. So you have to work
Speaker 3: on many things. You have to work on your leadership teams,
Speaker 3: you have to work on your own behaviors. You have
Speaker 3: to work on the incentive system or measurements that you
Speaker 3: put around that you have to put capabilities in place.
Speaker 3: It's very hard work. It's very hard work. But in
Speaker 3: unally the penny dropped. I would say, when we could
Speaker 3: show that these brands that had this higher purpose Dove
Speaker 3: standing for women's self esteem, or domestos building more toilets
Speaker 3: to attack the issues of open devocation, or life by
Speaker 3: a bar soap, helping a child read the eights of five,
Speaker 3: when those brands were starting to grow faster and be
Speaker 3: more profitable, the penny dropped. The other thing that people
Speaker 3: want is they don't want to be part of creating problems.
Speaker 3: Nobody wants to be part of a problem. They don't
Speaker 3: want to be accused at dinner conversations that they put
Speaker 3: the plastics in the oceans, or that they cut the
Speaker 3: forests in of this world, or that they kill the
Speaker 3: biodiversity that we all need to live. They don't want
Speaker 3: to be accused of being part of the eight million
Speaker 3: people that die of air pollution because they've factories are
Speaker 3: still running on call. So they want to work for
Speaker 3: companies that might not be perfect but are certainly becoming
Speaker 3: part of the solutions. And as these solutions become bigger
Speaker 3: or the sense of urgency becomes higher, you need to
Speaker 3: do that partly individually but increasingly collectively.
Speaker 1: What approach did you take to the pay at the
Speaker 1: top though, as well, because in terms of motivating people,
Speaker 1: obviously over the last decades, the gap between the c
Speaker 1: suite compensation and the people and the factories is obviously
Speaker 1: wide and enormously. Was that something you tried to limit?
Speaker 1: And where do you stand on this argument that maybe
Speaker 1: here in Britain we need to pay chief executives more.
Speaker 1: We're still paying them less here than they do in
Speaker 1: the United States.
Speaker 3: So I don't want to talk too much about myself,
Speaker 3: but I never talked When I went into Uniliver, my
Speaker 3: only request was to be sure that we had a
Speaker 3: gender diverse board. We had a very diverse board of
Speaker 3: six white Brits and six white Dutch and boy could
Speaker 3: they disagree. But I said, we need a global board,
Speaker 3: we need a gender diversity. We were the first board
Speaker 3: in the UK as fifty percent women. We had two
Speaker 3: from car too, from the far East. The first black
Speaker 3: woman from that went to Harvard and Fudson. A very
Speaker 3: good board actually, and that was to me important because
Speaker 3: I needed the support driving these major transformations, and boards
Speaker 3: that are aligned with what you do is so important
Speaker 3: to be successful. But other than that, I did not
Speaker 3: ask anything. So my starting salary was less than my predecessor.
Speaker 3: And then you do benchmarks like anybody does. It's a
Speaker 3: race to the top because CEOs are very carefully trying
Speaker 3: to find the right pool of benchmarking so that it
Speaker 3: looks like they get underpaid. And there's this notion that
Speaker 3: has crept in. If I don't get more than the other,
Speaker 3: the perception must be that I do a worse job.
Speaker 3: So from the start I said I don't want my
Speaker 3: salary to be moved. I earned more than I thought
Speaker 3: I ever earned, and it was more than I ever needed.
Speaker 3: So I changed the compensation plan for unial lever quite
Speaker 3: dramatically made it a performance driven plan, made it a
Speaker 3: five year plan, so its long term focus suggested that
Speaker 3: people invest as short term bonuses in the company shares
Speaker 3: to be committed instead of anything else and could only
Speaker 3: participate in the long term plans if they did that.
Speaker 3: So the performance requirements went actually up. People had to
Speaker 3: work twice as hard to get paid less, and it
Speaker 3: didn't make anybody leave because they were all paid well.
Speaker 3: And when the company started doing well behind our strategy,
Speaker 3: when we got our three hundred percent return, people were rewarded.
Speaker 3: And every year when the board came and said we
Speaker 3: want to pay you more because you're grossly underpaid, I
Speaker 3: said I don't want it, but I want you to
Speaker 3: put it in the annual report so that people see
Speaker 3: that we should have pay restrained. It is unacceptable that
Speaker 3: in the US, for example, if you look since the
Speaker 3: end of the seventies, still now, CEO pay has gone
Speaker 3: up nearly fifteen hundred percent. That is far ahead of
Speaker 3: what even the stock market went up. So that is
Speaker 3: no link to performance. That is just driven by greed.
Speaker 4: Is nothing else?
Speaker 1: Where does that end? Is that just keeping?
Speaker 3: Where is that the average paid now, total compensation in
Speaker 3: the FUCI one hundred here for the biggest companies is
Speaker 3: thirteen million dollars. It's more than I earned every year
Speaker 3: in Unilever, but doesn't bother me. But why should we
Speaker 3: have these high salaries to attract talent? Is the issue
Speaker 3: of attraction the salary, or is the issue of attraction
Speaker 3: the purpose or the UK economy or the low pound
Speaker 3: because of Brexit or other things? So what are the
Speaker 3: real issues that prevent you? Often it is because many
Speaker 3: companies don't have good succession planning in place. So why
Speaker 3: throw money at a problem when that problem is not
Speaker 3: created by the money? And frankly, when society needs more trust,
Speaker 3: the worst thing that you can do is keep cranking
Speaker 3: up CEO salaries. Last year, the salaries in the UK
Speaker 3: went up twenty percent for CEOs when the efforts worker
Speaker 3: in the street had to suffer still the tremendous consequences
Speaker 3: from COVID. This doesn't make sense. That's what I'm trying
Speaker 3: to say to CEOs if you want to gain the trust,
Speaker 3: because at the end of the day, it's all about trust.
Speaker 3: If you want to lead these companies, and how do
Speaker 3: you get people wish you when you lead these companies
Speaker 3: is to be trustworthy, you know, and trustworthy comes from behavior.
Speaker 3: So it's great to have great statements, great values or
Speaker 3: overall missions, but if your behavior doesn't align, you get
Speaker 3: a rotten culture. And that is what happens in most
Speaker 3: of these companies that run into trouble. We see it
Speaker 3: over and over and over again. So salaries is a
Speaker 3: very important signal or lightning rod for how you really
Speaker 3: behave as CEOs.
Speaker 2: There's some m and A transactions or takeover deals that
Speaker 2: are very hostile and frankly are the stuff of legends.
Speaker 2: You had to fend off. One hundred and fifteen billion
Speaker 2: pounds were offered right yes by craft hignds like who's
Speaker 2: the first person you called? Did you remember that day
Speaker 2: when you got the call?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 3: Absolutely, they offered me one hundred million. I'll tell you
Speaker 3: transparent here on the progress they offered me a hundred million.
Speaker 3: Because they think everything is for sale. Morals are not
Speaker 3: for sale.
Speaker 2: Somebody called you, so what happened? Somebody? You get on
Speaker 2: you get a phone call from someone, Well.
Speaker 4: I get a phone call from someone. At that time,
Speaker 4: we were.
Speaker 3: Difesting the march in business because the market was declining.
Speaker 3: Russia was being closed, so butter became cheaper. It was
Speaker 3: a business that wasn't global for us, so we decided
Speaker 3: to go out and I got a visit from someone
Speaker 3: from their site that I thought was looking at the
Speaker 3: march in business and he comes in and he says,
Speaker 3: we want to make an offer for the total company.
Speaker 1: So you were shocked.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, this is a moment that at least
Speaker 3: five seconds you is better not to say anything.
Speaker 4: But but you.
Speaker 3: Know, I've I always, I always feel that whatever happens
Speaker 3: to you, you just need to think about what you're
Speaker 3: going to do and not get into the panic mode.
Speaker 3: So the beauty is there as a silence because if
Speaker 3: the offer is not public, then nothing happens. And as
Speaker 3: soon as the rumors are there, the one who makes
Speaker 3: the offer has to then declare it publicly. And that
Speaker 3: came out in Alphar about a week later. So I
Speaker 3: was about to go to mel Mar and Southeast Asia
Speaker 3: for business visits, which I continued, but it gave me
Speaker 3: a week to think about this. Obviously I had informed
Speaker 3: the board, Obviously we had formed a group of people.
Speaker 2: Immediately, did you get did you get on the phone
Speaker 2: with every single board.
Speaker 3: Now immediately, Yeah, no, you have to when you get
Speaker 3: a novel like that. That's your fiduciary duty and would
Speaker 3: be wrong not to do that. But I also had
Speaker 3: prepared many scenarios. You say, when I you're a good
Speaker 3: CEO or not. Obviously you learn the sailing in the storms.
Speaker 3: You don't learn the sailing in the harbor, but you
Speaker 3: can practice a lot in the harbor, and we had
Speaker 3: practiced a lot with board scenarios. You always need to
Speaker 3: do that. So what if an activist would come on
Speaker 3: the board, what if we would have an offer? Now
Speaker 3: we thought it would never happen, given the size of
Speaker 3: the company and the success. This was, by the way,
Speaker 3: not driven by the performance in our share price. We
Speaker 3: were outperforming our competitors, we were outperforming the market. We
Speaker 3: actually were outperforming Warren Buffett, who was part of that consortium.
Speaker 3: So it wasn't the performance issue. It was purely a
Speaker 3: financial manipulation issue to get more out of it for
Speaker 3: a few people, the battle between a few billionaires and
Speaker 3: a company that was fighting for the billions of people.
Speaker 1: Were the board unanimous in wanting to reject it, like
Speaker 1: you always.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, but unanimous is also what are you going to
Speaker 4: do about it? What are the learnings?
Speaker 3: What are you Because the share price goes up seventeen percent,
Speaker 3: that was the offer they made. Your share price goes
Speaker 3: up seventeen percent. It's interesting many of the shareholders that
Speaker 3: claimed to be long term see an opportunity. You find
Speaker 3: out that many of them get paid on the quarter,
Speaker 3: and if they missed the opportunity, their bonus is down.
Speaker 3: So there's a reality out there. But we immediately took
Speaker 3: actions that I think the market liked, because if you
Speaker 3: look at the few years afterwards, our share price went
Speaker 3: up a further sixty seventy percent. DESK collapsed to well
Speaker 3: below when they started the company. But you know, we
Speaker 3: had to look at things. Our balance sheet was not
Speaker 3: well leveraged with serfs as well, when you have COVID
Speaker 3: and all, we are well conservative, and so we leveraged
Speaker 3: our balance sheet up a little bit more. Some shareholders
Speaker 3: felt that they could get a little bit more returned
Speaker 3: from us at that time, so we gave a modest
Speaker 3: share buy back. These were things I personally would not
Speaker 3: have done, but to put a floor under the share.
Speaker 4: Price, you have to compromise.
Speaker 3: I always call it being principally right but practically wrong
Speaker 3: is not a good position to be in.
Speaker 1: So you think, was that whole episode when you look
Speaker 1: back on it, the defining moment for your tenure CEO
Speaker 1: Ani Liver.
Speaker 3: I certainly was glad that it happened in year eight
Speaker 3: because I was a little stronger in my shoes and
Speaker 3: there was a little bit more confidence with the board.
Speaker 3: There was a confidence with all of our stakeholders. And
Speaker 3: what we found when this happened was actually I got
Speaker 3: a lot of support from all of the stakeholders and
Speaker 3: from all channels, including people like el Gore or even
Speaker 3: Bono was willing to but these were people that we had,
Speaker 3: you know, in our network and had taken care of.
Speaker 3: And so I think when you stand with the world,
Speaker 3: the world stands with you. I firmly believe that, and
Speaker 3: I also think we would have won that had that
Speaker 3: come to a vote, even though I went to Teresa
Speaker 3: May at that time and told her very clearly that
Speaker 3: the takeover code in the UK is absolutely stacked against
Speaker 3: the person that is being attacked. It's really wrongly written
Speaker 3: and that has cost a lot of business in the UK.
Speaker 3: It has actually weakened the UK from a corporate point
Speaker 3: of view. So we've seen some minor changes there, because
Speaker 3: then you need to go into what do you do
Speaker 3: about it? So I worked with Brussels, I worked with
Speaker 3: the UK and other countries to look at these takeover codes.
Speaker 3: But I also think it brought the debate of what
Speaker 3: type of capitalism do we want? Brought it further to
Speaker 3: the foreground, what books were written about it. I think
Speaker 3: companies became a little bit more aware. Many CEOs said, yeah,
Speaker 3: I wish I could do that. I'm telling them you
Speaker 3: can if you have the courage to do so. But
Speaker 3: I think it brought forward what type of society do
Speaker 3: we want to live in?
Speaker 4: You know, what do you want to celebrate?
Speaker 1: Paul, Thank you so much, Thank you, thank you, thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to this week's in the City. We will
Speaker 1: be back next.
Speaker 2: Week, but in the meantime, if you like our show,
Speaker 2: please head on over to Apple Podcasts or wherever you
Speaker 2: listen to podcasts and rate, review, and subscribe.
Speaker 1: This episode was hosted by Me David Merritt.
Speaker 2: And me Froncin Blackway.
Speaker 1: It was produced by Somasadi.
Speaker 2: Additional editing by Blake Maples.
Speaker 1: Special thanks for Paul Paulman