Episode 2: Humanity’s Moment

Full transcript

Ivy Kuo: Hello. I'm Ivy Kuo, Asia Pacific ESG Leader at PwC, and you're listening to PwC Podcast, ESG in Asia Pacific, the podcast for bite-sized updates on the latest ESG trends from climate change to social and labour rights due diligence. The aim is to bring together ESG practitioners to discuss and solve today and tomorrow's sustainability challenges, which will reflect PwC's New Equation strategy of building trust and making a lasting difference.

This first series is all about sustainable supply chain, and I'm delighted to introduce you to PwC's Asia Pacific Subject Matter Expert, Jeremy Prepscius.

Jeremy Prepscius: Thanks, Ivy, for the introduction. In this podcast series, we will be exploring the issues and changes driving the field of supply chain sustainability. This field is vast, and there are many important parts of it, but we'll be focusing on a few key areas, particularly human rights, modern slavery, decarbonization, and the governance aspects, which will impact accountability. We have a great lineup of speakers, including a broad set of professionals from those in the trenches of implementation at the top of corporate leadership. Let's get started with this episode.

Welcome to the second episode on sustainable supply chains. Today, we're using our discussion to explore human rights and modern slavery. As we get started, just a short reminder. All opinions are our own and not reflective of any organisations with which we may otherwise be associated. I'm particularly pleased to have this discussion with my three guest speakers because they have deep experiences/engagement on today's topic and can help us understand these issues both today and looking into the future.

My first guest is Yan Peng Ng, who is the Senior Manager for Human Rights at Neste Asia Pacific in Singapore, the Finnish renewable energy and circular solutions company. Yan Peng, I'm really happy you can join us today as you bring your experience and insights from a corporate perspective to this conversation, and in terms of corporate experiences, crossing languages, cultures, and winter experiences, you've had a really interesting journey. So tell us a little bit about your background and what you bring into this conversation, please.

Yan Peng Ng: Thank you for inviting me to take part in this podcast. So, yes, maybe a slight introduction into Neste. I joined this company as a human rights specialist in 2015. Neste, as you mentioned, is a leading producer of sustainable aviation fuel and also renewable diesel. It is a company that is based in Finland. I'm a part of a team of three people, and I have been involved in various human rights activities in the company from setting the company's first human rights policy to its implementation plan. Currently, I'm based in Singapore overseeing the management of human rights in this region. A bit of my background. I spent about 15 years in biological research before I joined the corporate world. So it was while at the University of Helsinki that I read courses on international law and nurtured a keen interest in human rights, which remained an interest for many years, and I was really fortunate to land an opportunity to work on this subject.

Jeremy Prepscius: Super. Thank you. My second guest is Alex Tan, PwC's Southeast Asia Cyber Forensics and Crisis Leader. Now, Alex, you also have a fascinating and winding journey, which allows you to bring real on-the-ground forensic and investigative experiences to this conversation. Alex, can you tell us a little bit about your background, please?

Alex Tan: Yeah. Hi, Jeremy. So I probably came through a non-traditional path into PwC. So my background is in law enforcement, nine years in Hong Kong SAR and eight years in New Zealand with the New Zealand Serious Fraud Office, and I've been with PwC for about 17, 18 years. That just means I'm getting pretty old now, but I run the forensics practice in Malaysia, and I have oversight across Southeast Asia. We have responsibility within PwC at looking at this issue around forced labour and modern day slavery. We decided that we will take a very strong forensic lens at this. Primarily, as the lead agency globally who deals with this is US Customs, and they're publicly stated. They take a law enforcement view on this. We have to look at dealing with this in a different way as opposed to what's gone on in the past and look at it from a risk and compliance perspective. Hence, why myself and my colleagues in the forensics practice look after this area for PwC.

Jeremy Prepscius: Great. Thank you. Putting these different lenses together is what makes this discussion really interesting, which brings us to our third guest today, Archana Kotecha, who is the CEO and founder of The Remedy Project. Now, Archana, you've been working on human trafficking, legal enforcement, victims' rights here in Asia and globally for years. Your background, obviously, is deep and impressive. If you could tell us a little bit about your story and your past work on modern slavery and human trafficking.

Archana Kotecha: Sure, Jeremy. So I'm a UK qualified lawyer originally from Mauritius, and I started my career practising corporate commercial law in the UK, got a bit jaded after a number of years, and had a very accidental foray into the world of human rights, primarily at the UN Refugee Agency in London, and that started an absolute career with a purpose and a career of service, I have to say. It was only a few years after being in the refugee space that I had a chance to encounter a trafficking victim who was a young woman, very similar age to myself from Moldova. I worked on her asylum case, and it changed me. It changed the direction that my career took, and I decided that that was the area that I really wanted to focus on. So I started out looking at trafficking for sexual exploitation, which was all the rage in those days and really, the key focus of law enforcement.

I moved to Asia about 14 years ago and continued working in this space, but primarily focused on Southeast Asia. I was the Asia region head and also the head of legal for Liberty Shed, which is an anti-trafficking NGO. The first of its kind in Hong Kong SAR. My work took me to all over Southeast Asia pretty much. I did cases with workers on the ground, did capacity building with NGOs, with judges, with prosecutors, became the go-to advisor to a number of governments in the region, particularly around legal frameworks relating to human trafficking and forced labour.

I guess over the last few years, my work has really focused on the issue of trafficking for labour exploitation and forced labour in particular. I set up The Remedy Project just under two years ago to really focus on the issue of access to remedy and access to justice for migrant workers in global supply chains. Currently, my repertoire of clients includes various governments in the region, some of the world's largest corporations, but also a lot of NGOs who work on the ground and who still need much support and engagement. So I come to this conversation bringing very much the human rights and legal angle to this conversation.

Jeremy Prepscius: Thank you. So I hope for everyone listening in, you're finding that this is going to be an interesting conversation with many and varied backgrounds to allow us to focus on the lens of human rights and modern slavery. So let's get started, and I'm going to ask my speakers to help me out here in the beginning. Just help us define terms a bit. Archana, coming back to you again, let's start with, when we talk about modern slavery and forced labour, what is this? What are we talking about?

Archana Kotecha: So forced labour really is about situations in which persons are coerced to work through the use of violence or intimidation, or by more subtle means such as manipulated debt, retention of identity documents, or potentially threats of denunciation to the authorities. Modern slavery then is an umbrella term that really refers to various offences that sit across the spectrum of exploitation, and these include anything from forced marriage to slavery, dead bondage, human trafficking. These are all criminal offences, and perhaps to put it in a little bit of context, in data issued just published by the UN, 50 million people globally are in situations of modern slavery. 28 million are in conditions of forced labour, and of this 28 million, 86% are individuals who are exploited in the private sector. The highest prevalence of forced labour is across the Asia Pacific region with migrant workers being three times more likely to be in forced labour than other adults.

If I may, Jeremy, one of the important things to remember while we contextualise this conversation is that many of the legal regimes that were built around supply chain transparency, disclosure, and even sanctions, which is what Alex referred to earlier, focused on the offences of modern day slavery, human trafficking, and forced labour. However, it must be said that the emerging regimes such as the due diligence regimes emerging across Europe are really looking at human rights within a broader sense of the term. So even beyond forced labour and human trafficking, and they are looking at environmental issues as well. The way I'd like to tie these two together is very much that modern slavery is a manifestation of multiple violations of human rights. Essentially, it is also a manifestation of issues around migration and labour market dynamics. So, really, all of this relates to violations of human rights that are set out very differently, depending on which legal framework you look at.

Jeremy Prepscius: Thank you. Really helpful, and actually, a really good lead into my next question to Yan Peng because as we then look at human rights and the issues that, as you describe here, are criminal actions when it comes to modern slavery and forced labour, there's a lot of discussion around human rights and due diligence. So, Yan Peng, when we say human rights due diligence, which is an emerging term, an emerging concept coming out of the EU, what does this mean for you as a corporate?

Yan Peng Ng: Right. So, Jeremy, let me just give a little background on how does this human rights due diligence is formulated around businesses. So, in 2011, the UN Guiding Principles for business and human rights law was published. Shortly after, companies started to adopt it, although it is only a voluntary document, but today, it is the guiding light for businesses to respect human rights and do no harm in their activities. So what does it mean for businesses when we talk about human rights due diligence is that businesses should put in place human rights, risk management that is focusing on human rights issues very much like how companies have mitigated health and safety issues. So, in a very similar manner, we could mitigate human rights in how companies have mitigated health and safety issues.

Let me share with you a little bit how, at Neste, we have applied this approach. We have been conducting social assessments to understand and to identify human rights issues in our supply chains, and that is to identify what kind of issues do we have in how we source and in the manner that we source. We put up robust supply chain monitoring processes to increase supply chain transparency and to ensure compliance.

We also conduct trainings to our suppliers to increase their awareness on human rights issues and to share best practices, not just in supply chain, but we also conduct human rights assessments on various activities within our own operations. Crucially, we identify gaps in the internal processes, and in doing so, we improve on our human rights due diligence. So, in a nutshell, human rights due diligence is not a single activity, but it's important to note that it's a mix of different measures to identify, prevent, and mitigate negative human rights impacts.

The other main tenant of the UN Guiding Principles that I would like to mention here is that business should provide remedy for human rights violations that are caused or linked to the activities. In practice, companies should set up effective grievous mechanisms for different groups of rights holders or stakeholders. Right? Companies have to ensure that these grievous mechanisms are managed by trained personnel, are accessible to the stakeholders they are intended for, and they are trusted by these stakeholders.

Jeremy Prepscius: Thank you, Yan Peng. Really, really helpful, and how companies think through this from a process perspective, an engagement perspective, a do-no-harm perspective is really important. I think it's also really important that we also illustrate this for those listening in. We're talking about processes. We're talking about impacts on people. That's the core of where this is coming from. So, Alex, your experience can illustrate the impacts, what we see on the ground. So, in terms of modern slavery and the forensic investigation and work that you and your team have done, what have you seen? What have you witnessed on the ground?

Alex Tan: Yeah. Thanks, Jeremy. First, I just want to reiterate what Archana said. Modern day slavery and forced slavery is a subset of the human rights issues that people are looking at now. This part of the world though, it is, at the moment, focused on the modern day slavery. So what are we generally seeing here? So there's a number of different tenants to this. One is it's becoming top of mind and very topical. I think a lot of people mix up the issues around the 11 ILO indicators with migrant labour when it actually impacts all labour, but in this part of the world, Southeast Asia, there's a lot of migrant labour.

What we are seeing here, specifically here is a number of things that.. there seems to be an overreliance on policies and procedures. Okay? Having a policy and procedures in place doesn't necessarily translate to actions on the ground, and what a policy and a view at a glass-gilded head office in a city like Kuala Lumpur, or in the centre of Bangkok, or in Jakarta does not translate to a manufacturing site 300 kilometres away necessarily.

The other thing that we've found is that in some cases, the stick approach isn't always working because it may work short-term, but what we need to do is to bring in some sustainable solutions. Right? So what you have to do is you have to convince the board, and I think this is where firms like ours have an advantage is that we know how to influence boards. We know how to influence management because you have to not only have the stick, but also have the carrot around. Apart from doing good in the world, this is actually good for business, and this is how you want to do it because otherwise, when their attention diverts to another company, you're left with management and the board who are forced into it and don't really want to do it. Will they go back to the old ways, which doesn't benefit anybody?

Jeremy Prepscius: So, these issues, forced labour, modern slavery, human trafficking, 11 forced labour indicators, they're not new. They've been on the table when it comes to supply chain for a long time. So the first question I wanted to then bring up for our discussion a bit is, why now? Why are these issues seem to finally be getting on the international agenda, and what does that mean for employers, or supply chains, or workers within those supply chains? Archana, I think you've started already alluding to some of this. Maybe you could talk us through some of what's driving change in engagement now.

Archana Kotecha: Sure. I really think it has been the increased regulation, but also the increased reporting around these issues that has really started to bring attention to this area. The sustainable development goals also have as one of their goals the eradication of modern day slavery. There is a deadline of 2030 that all governments are driving towards in order to eliminate a lot of these related offences from our world.

So we started to see, really, the legislation move from the transparency type softer legislation towards the harder approaches around human rights, due diligence, remediation, et cetera. These started to introduce new ideas of if an offence was committed in Cambodia, but it was actually a part of the extended supply chain of a company that was headquartered in Germany, there was now a possibility for a Cambodian victim to bring a civil claim in Germany. This started to really shrink this notion that supply chains are too complex and it's really hard to get from one end into the other.

So, gradually, with the regulation becoming a lot more pointed with issues around due diligence, the way companies report, the way they handle issues, we really started to see more focus. Of course, the prolific activity of US Customs and Border Protection around goods imported into the United States that are potentially tainted by forced labour has also brought a lot of attention to various sectors across various countries, and we're now seeing the EU announced that they will put out a similar piece of legislation. We see countries like Canada, who are already implementing this and other jurisdictions like Australia who are also thinking about going down the same route.

So the agendas and the interests have never necessarily been divergent. It's just that business is now really being forced to challenge the normalisation of exploitation in business practices. What has been going on for decades is suddenly no longer acceptable, and even though the UN Guiding Principles have been around since 2011, the truth is that the application of it has been very patchy because it was not really hard law. It was voluntary. Now, we are seeing that change through the new legal frameworks, and some of the normalised issues that business is really being forced to contend with are issues around ethical recruitment. How is your recruitment done? Who pays the fees? What kind of due diligence are you doing into recruitment agents?

Punishing purchasing practises that are leading supplies to cut corners and often at the expense workers, a very compliance-focused approach is really something that is creating more risk than anything else, and I entirely agree with what Alex said earlier that we are seeing an overreliance on a process that looks fantastic on paper, but on implementation isn't really quite there. One of the reasons why we see this based on the work that I do in the region is very much that there is often a disconnect between the stakeholders working in this space. So companies don't necessarily communicate effectively with NGOs. They don't necessarily engage workers in building these processes and policies that they're putting out, which results in a very sort of compliance tick box approach, which in the end, doesn't give you the comfort of managing your risk like you really should.

Jeremy Prepscius: Great. So, two things here. One is I'm going to come back to Yan Peng in just a minute to start talking a little bit about what she is seeing and getting beyond that tick box approach, but first, Alex, you've been working on the pointy end of the sphere of enforcement with US Customs and Border Protection, for example, and some of those issues. What have you seen and learned from the enforcement aspects that are really beginning to emerge and you're seeing these play out in places like Malaysia, for example?

Alex Tan: Yeah. So, yeah, following on from what Archana said. This has been around for a long time, so why now, right, and why now? There are a number of reasons, and I think Archana articulated some of them, but one of the things I think we have to give credit to the enforcement that US Customs is taking. Whatever their reasons are for taking it, we can debate that till the cows come home. But if we follow on from what the US did with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, they led the way in enforcing that which changed how people were looking at from around the world. So you got the UK Bribery Act to that.

Now, they've been leading the way in the last few years with modern day slavery and forced labour, and the enforcement action they're taking that really no other government is taking has opened people's eyes to it. Now, one of the things. They visited Malaysia a month or so ago, and I met with them. Now, one of the things that they said was, one, they take a law enforcement lens to this. Right? They're an investigatory agency. They're not just a regulatory agency, so they take that view of things, but also, the bar for them to impose their sanctions, which is a WRO, Withhold Release Order, is actually very low. So it's a very, very low bar for them to have to hit.

The other thing I think that people need to take note of is the fact that they're not there to say, "Well, you've been a bit naughty. We'll give you a little bit of time before we take action." As an enforcement agency, if they find something wrong, they enforce it immediately, and their bar is low because a few people were questioning, "Look, why don't you... If you find something wrong, just let us know. We'll go away, and fix it, and all the rest." They said, "No, that's not our role. We're not that sort of agency. We're a law enforcement agency. We find something wrong. As soon as we do, we make our recommendation, and we go." No difference if a policeman catches you stealing a box of chocolates from the shop. They don't give you time to put it back. They find it, they take action straight away.

So I think that's something that needs to be... take a note of, but also, this part of the world, for whatever reason, we can talk about geopolitics, we can talk about anything else, it doesn't matter. The guns are firmly trained by US Customs and Border Protection and also other governments on this part of the world. Yeah. Archana said it as well that a lot of issues happen in this part of the world. As an example, there is a diplomat in the UK High Commission based in Malaysia who has a significant role looking at forced labour issues on behalf of the UK government.

Jeremy Prepscius: So, Yan Peng, we've heard about law enforcement, police action. What are some of the other issues that you see driving some of the work that is ensuring that Neste thinks broadly about human rights and of course, the forced labour and modern slavery issues in your supply chain?

Yan Peng Ng: Right. So, yes. I agree with Archana when she mentioned the changing landscape, the legislative landscape, but I also have to emphasize that this landscape is quite fragmented. Therefore, it's a challenge sometimes for businesses to maneuver in this complex landscape. Right? But what is good in the sense is that it makes businesses sit up and pay more attention to what is coming their way. So, voluntary commitment is not sufficient, and hopefully, in the future, what this landscape of legislation would bring more of a level playing field in the business because if you see you have modern slavery legislation in the UK, in Australia, and in some other countries, but in most countries, there is no such legislation, and in fact, some of the national laws allow some of these practises, which is not in conformity with international standards.

A company usually sources from many, and it's difficult to have this kind of conversation when the suppliers are located in countries with different legislation, with different expectations.

I'm not saying this as an excuse, but it's very true to say that if you have processes and you have policies, they guide your practices. In your processes, you could put gateways and safeguards, right, in place and to help your internal stakeholders to identify those issues. But then after that, you do have to have experts to come in and look into those issues in more detail and in the local context, and to try to find ways to solve them together with your stakeholders, your suppliers.

So I would say that many of these issues are not the kind of thing that you could solve with your tick box or checklist, and very often, suppliers are important to companies, and it's not that easy to just stop buying from a supplier. So, in Neste, what we have been trying to do is to conduct conversations with our suppliers to share our best practises, and to have more engagement with them to have trainings, and to work together with them to overcome some of these challenges, and also, to convince them that national legislation is not sufficient in today's world in terms of meeting human rights expectations.

Jeremy Prepscius: What I find really interesting is this is all going to happen at the same time coming from governments and enforcement agencies leading companies working through these issues, civil society pushing, engaging, learning, seeking enforcement action. All of this is going to happen at the same time. Archana, you pointed out there was a report just a few days ago from the ILO. Modern slavery has increased by 10 million people in the last five years. This is not the world we want to live in, so my question for us, and maybe we'll start with Yan Peng, is, how do we use this window of opportunity? How do we change this situation? What do we really need to focus on over the next five years?

Yan Peng Ng: Some events in the world sometimes create this opportunity, and one that we have seen recently is the COVID pandemic. We have seen prominence of modern slavery cases being reported, and many of this has come during this time. What the pandemic has done is to shine a spotlight on the working conditions and practices that has given rise to indebted labour amongst migrant workers, for example. It also highlight the discriminatory treatments of these workers compared to the local population. In a way, it helped us to have conversations with our stakeholders on these issues because now it's more in the spotlight and people are paying more attention to it.

What companies need to focus? I would say that companies need to cascade and embed the implementation of human rights due diligence all the way to the ground and in all areas of their operations, so not just the supply chain. I would say that human rights issues are complex, and there is a diversity of human rights issues. It makes it challenging, right? So I would say that business has to be open-minded and transparent, and also, try to harness innovative ways to work on these issues. So going beyond compliance and going beyond ticking the boxes.

One thing that comes to my mind is technology. What companies do have to come from an understanding that is supported by robust data, a good understanding of what is happening on the ground. Companies should also invest in capacity building and especially internal expertise in order to help them to navigate and to tailor-make innovative solutions that are fit for purpose. I would also say that companies should raise awareness and understanding on human rights issues within the company and foster a rights culture among its employees. It is important for employees to understand that they are universal rights regardless of our origin, nationality, or cultural background, and everyone is equal in these rights.

Lastly, I will say that human rights should not matter only for dedicated teams, such as compliance teams and the CSR departments. Every employee in Neste knows we are in the business of helping our clients to reduce their carbon footprints, and so they should also know that the company does that while ensuring that we respect human rights, and how is the company doing that? So that's my long and short take on this.

Jeremy Prepscius: Archana, where should companies be focusing on the next five years?

Archana Kotecha: Being the boring lawyer that I am, Jeremy, I'll start with the fragmental legal landscape. Yan Peng mentioned the fragmented legal landscape, the difference between the international standards and the local standards. Very often, companies are left divided over which way to go, what to do. You have local supplies based in various jurisdictions. You're headquartered somewhere else. What is the right thing to do? There are so many different laws.

Many of the new laws that are emerging are all coming from the UN Guiding Principles, which really is the holy grail. So be safe, future-proof your business, and play to the highest standards, and work to the highest standards, which is the UN Guiding Principles. Upscale your key stuff in this area, understanding what the obligations are and how to work and mainstream the UN Guiding Principles in the way you go about engaging with stakeholders, using your commercial leverage, or even through your risk identification management and mitigation processes.

The second thing I'd like to say is stakeholder engagement is absolutely critical. If I had a dime for every single time people came out and announced new measures, new processes, et cetera, that were meant to benefit workers, but in which workers had never been consulted and had nothing to say about it, and then didn't trust those processes, which led to a big disconnect and a waste of resources, et cetera, and help to perpetuate exploitation and left problems unaddressed, I'd be very rich today.

It is really important to listen to affected communities and to listen to workers to understand their needs, to understand the risk, and then to really think about designing what protection should look like. The centrality of rights holders, particularly where you're thinking about grievance systems, et cetera, is absolutely key. Otherwise, you really are missing a trick, and it will come back to haunt you as a business. There is a key need of a combination of approaches.

One more thing I'd like to say is use your commercial leverage. Everybody has leverage, and you can achieve so much by using leverage, whether it is trying to include SMEs that you work with into a bigger fold of, "Come along and share our grievance infrastructure. Share our knowledge and learning around the space of managing human rights issues so that you can also come along." This will also help to address the issue of creating a level playing field. So I think this window of opportunity is there now. I've been doing this work for a really long time. I cannot impress enough how urgent these issues are because for many, tomorrow is already too late. So we really must take this opportunity and do the best that we can with it.

Jeremy Prepscius: Alex, urgency, the window of opportunity. From your perspective, where do companies need to be focusing on for the next five years?

Alex Tan: Yeah. Some fantastic points made by Yan Peng and Archana. I think I've probably got the benefit of being a pretty old chap and see how the world has changed. The world is changing faster over the last three to five years than it has in the decades before that, and people won't stand for these issues. Your customers won't stand for it. Your stakeholders won't stand for it. Your shareholders won't stand for it. Your employees won't stand for it. Soon, your workers aren't going to stand for it for getting abused.

I think something that Yan Peng spoke about, which I think is crucial and we overlook a little bit, is the role that data can play to help companies get out of this. Data generally doesn't lie. Okay? There's a lot of data that companies have that they can look at and analyse to see because quite often, you see at the management level, they may support efforts for worker rights, but at the operational level below them, it is not working. By looking at data, that's one thing.

The other thing I think that Archana mentioned as well is what companies need to do. If they really want to address this for the good of society or because they've got a big stick over their head is they often overlook, as Archana said, the rights holder. Who is the rights holder? The rights holder is the worker. Okay? Now, that doesn't mean they get a disproportionate say in this, but they have a say in this. Just like from an outside point of view, the civil society, the lawyers, the PwCs of this world don't have the answer on their own. It's a combined effort. Internally, it's also a combined effort. It's a combined effort of management, the board, the stakeholders, your shareholders, and the rights holder.

So I think companies with the US and the way they're looking at it with new laws coming in the UK with an increased focus on this, from a company's survival point of view, they need to be addressing this. If you look at it purely from a commercial point of view, it makes sense doing this. Right? Have this done right. You can then hold yourself up as a differentiator in the market if we're looking at this purely from a commercial point of view. If we're looking at from a human point of view, you must do this, right? Just to do no wrong, to be a good person, to be a good company. So there's no real downside for whatever reason you're looking at this. Maybe cost is a factor, but if you get pinged on it, if you think the cost of complying is high, have a look at what the cost of non-compliance is going to be. So I can't really see there being a downside on this across the board. First move of advantage will prevail, so roll up your sleeves and get stuck in now.

Jeremy Prepscius: Thank you, and I think this conversation started with focusing on modern slavery and has ended in human rights. That's where I was hoping we would end up, and I've learned a lot in this conversation. So, Archana, Yan Peng, Alex, thank you very much. If I was going to summarise this, I would say, number one, there's a window. The world is changing. Get ready. Number two, as a corporate, policies, process, engagement, internal integration. We know what to do. Number three, let's keep the focus on it is the rights holder, the person who is impacted, the data surrounding that person, that is what is going to really illustrate is what we're doing effective, and does it have impact because it's those impacts that will create the world we live in and hopefully, will create the world we want.

In our next podcast, we'll be exploring the aspects of climate change and supply chain decarbonization with a new set of discussions. Please join me as we continue to explore the changing imperatives driving sustainable supply chains.