[Auto-generated transcript. Edits may have been applied for clarity.] To clear. Pandemic, as we saw, has impact on the economic development of the world.
Does it mean that you'll react the same way? But 911 is we all have seen it, you know, so it's synchronised at the moment.
Covid, but they might differ. The shocks that were considered real shocks internal for the organisation.
Then what might be the global shocks. Welcome to Global Shocks, the podcast of the Oxford Martin program on changing global borders.
My name is John Icahn and I'm a research fellow in international relations.
And in this podcast we're going to explore how international organisations deal with global shocks.
Global shocks are all around us, from humanitarian emergencies to war, financial crises to pandemics.
So how can international organisations respond to them, adapt to them and survive such turbulent times?
To find out, we are entering the conversation with leading figures from these organisations to find out how they're affected by crisis and turbulence,
what lessons they draw from the past and what future prospects they have.
Today let's talk about Greenpeace.
Greenpeace is a little different from the other international organisations that we've been discussing in this podcast so far.
It's not an intergovernmental organisation like for example, the World Health Organisation,
and it's a bit more like the International Committee of the Red cross, an international non-governmental organisation.
But whereas the Red cross aims to be neutral. Greenpeace is an activist campaigning network founded in Canada in 1971.
In its own words, Greenpeace campaigns for a green and peaceful future by holding governments and corporations accountable.
The network is composed of national and regional offices across the globe,
as well as the coordinating office of Greenpeace International in Amsterdam in the Netherlands, known for highly visible direct actions.
Greenpeace has generated awareness for environmental issues and climate change, but also attracted controversy and even legal action over its tactics.
I spoke to the former head of Greenpeace International, Doctor Kumi Naidoo.
Kumi Naidoo was the organisation's international executive director from 2009 to 2015,
and then the secretary general of Amnesty International from 2018 to 2019.
Coming on, you grew up in Durban in South Africa, where as a teenager he organised school boycotts against the apartheid regime.
He went into exile in England in the 1980s, where he earned a doctorate in political sociology as a Rhodes Scholar at the University of Oxford.
He returned to South Africa in 1990 after Nelson Mandela's release from prison,
where he made key contributions to the legalisation of the African National Congress.
Currently, he is a pain distinguished lecturer at Stanford University.
I spoke to him about his life as an activist, his experience at Greenpeace, and the past and future of climate activism in a turbulent world.
Welcome to global shocks, Kumi. What did you introduce yourself? And tell us a little bit about your background as an activist.
Absolutely. So my name is Kumi Naidoo. I am currently a visiting lecturer for a year at Stanford University.
I am also advisor to the Community Arts Network and a founding board member of the Ticketek Foundation for the Promotion of Activism.
The foundation was set up a year ago, after the passing of very popular rap and hip hop artists.
Who was my son. And when I asked the question, why is activism failing or not succeeding to win on the scale that it needs to?
The main reason I landed on is that we have a serious communications deficit that we are not able to communicate to people clearly enough,
accessibly enough, and urgently enough. Because a lot of if you take climate activism,
a lot of our approaches is narratives that are aimed at the brain and the head, and we ignore the heart and the gut.
Right. And if we look at the emerging fascists around the world,
from Donald Trump to Steve Bannon to Bolsonaro and others, Orban, they are not concerned about the head.
They are not interested in facts. Because for us in the climate justice movement, we have tried to advance our struggles by using science policies,
rational arguments, proposals around specific interventions and so on.
But the language that we use, the framing of it, and so on, is way above the ability for most people to enter the conversation,
including people who might have university education and so on.
Because if you're not a specialist in climate, then you struggle to get in.
One of the solutions to the problem is I looked back at my own childhood activism, you know,
during apartheid, in a country where the majority of our people were consciously deprived of education.
Uh, one of the most powerful statements of apartheid policy was actually about education, the founder of the apartheid ideology.
And the foot said blacks should never be shown the greener pastures of education.
They should know that this station in life is to be used upward in droves of water.
And so when I look at how did we mobilise, how did we mobilise in a context with people couldn't read and write.
And actually the answer is so simple.
It was through song, through dance, through theatre, through a range of cultural set of expressions that connected with peoples.
So that is why a lot of my work right now is focussed on how do we break through the communications hurdles,
and how do we actually draw on the power of arts and culture.
Let me just conclude by saying that I am not suggesting that if we harness the full power of arts and culture
for social change on its own will deliver us the salvation from the climate crisis and its intersecting crises.
However, I would safely say right now that without harnessing the power of arts and culture,
we almost guaranteed not to have a chance to break through the communications hurdles that we have.
What really led you from from your sort of earliest involvement in activism all the way to an organ,
a big organisation like Greenpeace, when Greenpeace, you know, folks had come to me for this position.
In fact, there's a funny story about it when when they called me,
I was in the middle of the hunger strike to put pressure on the South African government to act on the worsening situation in Zimbabwe.
Part of it was this strike that Archbishop Desmond Tutu had called for, and I was the first person that anchored it for 21 days and all of that.
And in the middle of it, I got a call from Greenpeace, uh, sort of saying, would you be interested to be a candidate?
And I said to them, you know, thanks very much.
Deeply honoured, but the timing is really bad.
And my daughter, uh, who I spoke to a few days later, said that she had seen me on a television interview.
Interested? Dead. Why are you. So why are you still doing interviews and so on?
Aren't you supposed to be conserving your energy? And I said, no, no, you know, I, I made an exception.
Uh, the only two people I spoke to with these BBC people and, and this folks from Greenpeace who called and she said, what did you tell them?
And I said, no, I told them, bad timing. You know, I can't make a decision like that.
And she said to me, you know, that I won't talk to you if you don't seriously consider this when you finish your stupid hunger strike,
because, you know, Greenpeace is addressing one of the most critical issues of our time.
But when I spoke to the Greenpeace board and so on, it became clear that the reason they were keen to have somebody like me.
Was the recognised that the organisation couldn't continue as it was,
which is having a international claim by calling themselves Greenpeace International,
when in fact there was not a equal balancing of power between the Global South and the global North.
And it's important to recognise that when we, talking about international organisations and their role in the world,
is that actually there are very few truly international organisations.
We use the term international very loosely, and I can tell you an anecdote to bring this point to life.
The Secretary-General of amnesty, while I was the head of Greenpeace, was a guy called Salil Shetty,
and he brought his senior management team to meet with my senior management team at Greenpeace.
You know, about six months or so after I started.
And then he said, you know, Kumi, I've come to realise why all the organisations we know,
whether it's Greenpeace International, at Amnesty International,
Save the Children International, Oxfam International and so on, is that we use the term international to mask out an international.
We actually are. So the word international has been abused for far too long.
And so when I was approached both by Greenpeace and Amnesty,
it was very much part of how does the organisation become as global as the challenges that it seeks to address,
and how does it ensure that it looks like how the world looks like now?
The difficulty we have is that international organisations in the governmental space G20, G8, UN and so on,
they don't have a fundamentally different analysis from the crises that we find ourselves in.
Right? Because, for example, as early as 1997, after the Asian financial crisis, the president of the world Bank, Bill Clinton, was president,
then secretary general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, and many others said the world needs a new international financial architecture.
We would agree with that. But then once some Band-Aids were put on the Asian financial crisis in 1997,
which obviously proliferated beyond to Argentina, Russia and so on, as we saw after the 2008 2009 global financial crisis.
And as we are seeing now after Covid, right,
all of these crises have shown how bad our current systems are in terms of being able to take
care of the majority of people in our societies within the global South or in the global North.
So what we would have expected, say, after the global financial crisis in 2009,
was that there would be an approach of system innovation, system transformation, system redesign.
But what we got and as we now having with Covid post-Covid is all you get is system recovery, system maintenance and system protection.
The other important thing to note about the failure of the international system at the moment is
the failure to embrace a wisdom from the feminist movement that was given to us decades ago,
when we were urged to embrace the power of intersectionality, understanding that, you know,
environment doesn't exist in a silo development and poverty doesn't exist in a silo.
Human rights doesn't exist in silos.
But both on the civil society side that, you know, Greenpeace and WWF, friends of the Earth focussed on environment,
amnesty, Human Rights Watch on Human Rights and Oxfam and Save the Children and so on on poverty.
But on the governmental side, you have exactly the same thing.
Greenpeace also stands out as a civil society organisation that is committed to direct action to civil disobedience.
And that's, of course, included not shying away from confronting powerful multinational corporations responsible for major environmental harm.
2012 for example, you occupy the Gazprom oil platform in the Arctic as part of a Greenpeace campaign.
In this kind of world marked by turbulence, do we need more civil disobedience?
So, uh, firstly, one of my objections of joining Greenpeace.
I had spent ten years working internationally before that.
If history teaches us anything when humanity is facing terrible injustice or a terrible challenge,
those struggles only move forward when decent women and men stood up and said, enough is enough and no more.
We prepared to put our lives on the line, prepared to go to prison if necessary.
We are prepared to make sacrifices necessary and by taking action that is peaceful, but which actually breaks unjust laws.
Right? And I would say laws that protect the fossil fuel industry, given that we know that the fossil fuel industry is dabbling in a poison.
Called carbon dioxide emissions, which is killing the future of our children and their children.
If we look at the extreme imbalance of power.
Let me give you a practical example. So you, as the head of Greenpeace, uh, we were engaged in a campaign around shell, right.
To encourage it not to go into the Arctic, for example.
Now, the Arctic is actually one of the front lines of the environmental challenges that we face at the moment.
The Arctic is telling us clearly we are in deep trouble.
The incident you talk about when I occupied a gas boil rig in 2012, in the bottom sea.
At that time there was a clear recognition, but the science there was very few governments that was still questioning the reality of climate change.
But what we saw is, yes, you can't blame people who work in the fossil fuel industry,
you know, for being in the dirty energy industry that's driving us to destruction,
because they've been told that they are providing an important national service by generating energy.
But none of those workers particularly say, oh, I only want to generate dirty energy.
Please let me generate dirty energy. They want to generate energy so they would be happy to do it through cleaner means.
It doesn't impact the children's futures. Now the fossil fuel industry.
We're head of the International Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The IPCC, in terms of their own scientists, told them much earlier that burning of fossil fuels is going to create the problem.
What they opted to do was to to bury their own scientific findings in terms of public discourse, but they changed their practice.
So, for example, when rigs were being put in the sea, right,
they took into account sea level rise as a result of climate change, and they put the rigs higher.
But in the public, those spending hundreds of millions of dollars saying fossil fuels is absolutely fine.
And so when you look at the imbalance of power between Shell and Greenpeace, for example,
Greenpeace entire global budget of close to €400 million is not even one tenth of the advertising budget of one fossil fuel companies like shell.
And so the power of civil disobedience, you know, which we learned from Mahatma Gandhi, from Martin Luther King, from Nelson Mandela,
from Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, you know, many, many people in history around the world is as relevant today as it's ever been.
Because when power does not shift, you have to shift power.
The other purpose of why civil disobedience is important is that some of these crimes, environmental crimes,
are happening far away from the visibility of the vast majority of people on the planet.
Whether it's the slavery practices we have seen in the Amazon,
whether it's the murders of nuns and others who are working to change things around what we've seen in the Amazon.
Then if you take the Arctic or the Antarctic, they are so remote from where the majority of people live, it seems so far from the reality.
But as I like to remind people, you know, people say, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
Sadly, what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic.
Its impact is global, but so so therefore civil disobedience is also about bearing witness to injustice in places where it's hidden from people.
Now, nobody relishes the idea of going to prison or putting your life at risk when you, you know,
occupy a oil rig where potentially Russian agents could be firing at you has happened the year after,
in 2013, that the Greenpeace activists were thrown in prison in Murmansk for doing exactly the same protest that we did.
But where we are right now as humanity,
it's important to understand that civil disobedience is one important and powerful tool in the toolbox of social change.
And like any tool, if you don't use it strategically, with good timing, with sensitivity and so on, it can actually backfire really badly.
Civil disobedience is very contextual. What I mean by that is what works well in one context might not work well in another context.
So let me give you an example. I hope many of your listeners will know what mooning is, but if they don't, let me just up a definition.
So if 20 people want to make a sign, say, stop climate change, but they have to into a venue where they kind of carrying placards and so on.
What has happened sometimes is people will paint on each of their bum cheeks 1 or 2 letters,
and at a given point they all pull their pants down and it'll say, act now to stop climate change, for example.
Now, that might work well in London or New York or San Francisco.
It might not work so well in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia or Egypt, right?
So it doesn't mean that it was bad. And it becomes more complicated in the global environmental space because nothing stays solely within one country.
And that was often a challenge for Greenpeace because like, for example,
whenever there was atrocities committed by the Israeli state against the Palestinian people and when when those were happening,
you would have a lot of Greenpeace wanting to take action and take a position, and then others would be very hesitant about it.
And those that were hesitant would not even allow all those individual countries where it was easier to do,
or it was appropriate to do to to offer that solidarity to the Palestinian people because they would say,
well, it will still reflect in our market because when you do social media and so on, people will still say, hey, that's Greenpeace who did that.
And in our country that will play bad. So this is quite a challenging thing to actually manage.
And let me give you another example.
When Extinction Rebellion, who I fully support, but for example, when they choose to block tube stations by public transport,
used mainly by working class people, we are pushing people away.
You know, that might have got media coverage, but on the other hand, it's alienating a critical constituency.
And bear in mind, one of the problems of the environmental and climate movement that it's far too wide and far too middle class.
So you were international executive director of Greenpeace International from 2009 to 2015.
In that time, what was the most challenging global shock that challenged the organisation that challenged Greenpeace?
I think the Fukushima nuclear power plants, uh, vulnerability after the tsunami in I believe it was 2011.
And it's at a time also when people were trying to make a big push for nuclear energy because they said it was carbon neutral,
which, by the way, it's not 100% carbon neutral. And there's major questions around water and resources and so on.
So and so we were struggling right until Fukushima to get movement on countries like Germany and Italy, for example, but six months after.
So we turned that crisis into an opportunity.
And this is just be very clear why I and many others don't think nuclear energy is the solution to the current situation,
because to put it simply, it's too expensive, it's too dangerous, and it'll deliver too little, too late.
To address the climate crisis, the global shock of Fukushima, which was put the world on anxiety, and not just in Asia.
You know, I also faced other global, which would say to us that Greenpeace was like a global shock,
but probably not to the world as a whole, which had to do with the culture and the reality of international organisations.
And I'll tell the story because it's a painful one. So in 2014, the climate negotiations were taking place in Lima, Peru.
And I hate going to those negotiations because it kind of always is very frustrating because you seem as if you are doing the same thing every year,
and each year you just like moving the agenda, like, you know, one centimetre in the right direction.
Groundhog Day. Yeah, exactly. So my colleagues in the Philippines kindly said to me, why don't you, rather than go to Peru,
come and be in the Philippines because another horrific typhoon is on his way and thousands of people are going to lose their lives,
and there'll be millions and millions of dollars in infrastructure loss.
And let's stand with the people on the ground, and we can message in to Lima and the cop that was happening there.
And, you know, we didn't have cell phone reception and so on.
And we were kind of chasing the typhoon,
trying to get ahead of it so that we could get to communities and support them with temporary solar installations and so on.
So they could call their families and so on.
And, and we would interview them and tell their stories, and we would use satellite phone to, to send the stories to, to the negotiations in Peru.
When we come out of it, we get a shock to. Discovered that Greenpeace Germany had led an action on a sacred site in Peru called the Musk Alliance,
which allowed a corrupt political elite in Peru.
The president and the people around him to then turn that into attention away from the corruption investigations and so on, that were going on to say,
oh, Greenpeace disrespected our culture, by the way, the Peruvian government was not doing anything substantial to protect the Nazca lines.
So it was complete opportunism on their part. But should we have done it?
We should not have done it, but no question.
And, you know, in a situation like that where indigenous peoples around the world were criticising Greenpeace immediately,
people in the world of archaeology and cultural protection of historical sites and so on,
with so upset with us as well as the climate movement, because suddenly nobody was talking about what's happening in the climate negotiation,
everybody, the news became saturated with good people.
Can we arrest the people? You know, that's how the government played the agenda.
I then went and I've never witnessed I never had tomatoes and eggs thrown at me in my life.
But that, you know, what I see when there are global shocks is that people in leadership don't actually step forward and say,
we made a mistake, we made a miscalculation, and we take responsibility.
Part of what I was trying to do in that, that for us was like for me was emotionally because bear in mind, right, the inequality of it.
Can you imagine a bunch of Peruvian activists coming to Germany and occupying a church in Germany?
The German office of Greenpeace would never agree to that, right?
But the global north can parachute into global South places with complete immunity and arrogance.
And that has to shift. And even though I was not aware of the decision and I had to deal with the aftermath of it, I felt it was responsible,
the right thing for us to do as Greenpeace was to go and apologise and say, this is not who we are.
Would you say that part of learning the lesson is to really think more carefully,
as you said at the beginning of a conversation about how to truly be a global organisation, is that is that part of the answer to these moments?
Absolutely. Because because if as a global organisation, you're choosing to do something in one national space,
then we should evenly say yes, that we will do that in all national spaces.
So like with Covid and the vaccine apartheid that most of us in the global South had to deal with,
they were saying the powerful nations of the world were saying, we need to get people vaccinated, we need to get people vaccinated.
And and they developed the vaccines because they have the resources on a scale that the global South could never have done it,
with the exception of India, which caught up and played a big role. We have to have equity in how we act in the world,
and basically the global system has very limited equity in the people that dominate decision making.
It's, you know, you would say, okay, it's changing a bit now.
And I think that the formation of bricks and its recent expansion is an attempt to balance the power that exists.
The difficulty for many of us in the global South is that some of the leading governments in BRICs are not the shining examples of democracy,
or of justice, or of anti-corruption and so on.
You know, like my country, South Africa, which is a leading figure in BRICs,
is one of the most corrupt countries in the world with one of the most corrupt political leaderships that that you can find.
And so while I agree with a lot of the words coming out of the mouth about the changes we need in the international system and so on,
there is this difficulty that what they are saying and why saying it is not necessarily what they're going to follow through on.
Right. And so that's the other huge problem we have with the state of our politics at the national and global level.
And so for civil society organisations, we have to live up to the criticisms that we are making about the injustices in the global governance system.
Right. If we are making critiques about, you know, people should not stay in positions,
they shouldn't develop a culture of indispensability, then we need to reflect that fully.
And another small example, you know, the one thing that international organisations,
national governments and international NGOs have in common is that over time they've ended up all using the same consultants, you know.
No, seriously, they using, you know, Accenture, KPMG, Deloitte and Touche,
all the major consulting firms in the world, Boston Consulting Group, uh, Gemini named them.
They all now have significant sort of non-profit practices, as they call it.
So even when I was at Greenpeace, you know, that was the logic.
The many of those contracts were in place. And of course, if you've designed the organisation to look like corporations and you.
You're mimicking them. Then you're going to need the same consultant to help you figure out how to make those institutions run more effectively.
Yes. And so a big question for people who believe that the current system is not simply
one that requires incremental tinkering and baby steps in the right direction,
but people who believe that the current system is broken to an extent that it requires substantive structural and systemic change.
If you hold that view,
then you have to recognise that it's a fraud to suggest to people that if we just improve things and it's all going to be okay, don't panic.
Right. And that's the approach we've taken to climate since 1992, since the first Rio summit.
The powerful thought we can get some nice words in the final declaration and show that
we are going to do something that responds to what the science was saying will be okay.
And now we are in a situation where we are right at the climate cliff.
And let's be blunt, as we you know, people ask me the question, is it too late to address climate change?
And this is a question, by the way, people who are asking me ever since I was at peace from 2009.
And my answer is always an optimistic one, which is to say that the window of opportunity to prevent catastrophic,
runaway, irreversible climate change is small and shrinking, but the opportunity is still there.
What you see with the most progressive or radical of of political parties,
when they are out of power, they can be very transformative in what they say.
But when they get into power, you know, understandably, the constraints of power is very, very limiting within certain current global rules.
And those very global rules continue to perpetuate more and more global shocks.
Right. I mean, Covid itself is a result of us not addressing deforestation.
And and so we then continue to generate more and more, if you want, uh,
crises or global shocks that that each time we are more shocked by and each time appear to be more incompetent in addressing it as a global community.
And the last thing I would say is that climate change, I've been arguing since 2009 can be an opportunity.
Well, at 2009, it could have been an opportunity, right?
Which is for us to recognise.
For far too long, we've lived in a world that's been divided between north and south, east and west, developed and developing, rich and poor.
What climate change is saying to us, hey folks, get it together, get it together and get it together fast because you'll either act as a united,
global family and community, and hopefully you can reduce the amounts of deaths that are happening.
So for the people who are dying, like the 450 people that died in my city in Durban in 2022, it's too late for that.
Right from two days of crazy rainfall that created massive infrastructure losses and took 450 lives.
It's too late for those people, surely. But I still want to believe that we are still in a moment where we can actually
prevent the worst losses of human life and the complete destruction of countries,
and so on. Even though parts of Africa are becoming depopulated as a result of climate change as we speak,
I still want to believe that it's possible for us to deal with the biggest global shock.
And, you know, it's interesting about whether you could even call climate change a global shock in the sense that
the global shock sort of suggests that something that was unanticipated came out of nowhere.
And so the terrible thing about it is that climate change is the biggest global shock that we face, but we don't treat it as a global shock.
We treat it as always, just one other issue.
And therefore it's important for us to recognise that the struggle to but to address climate change is not an environmental issue.
Climate change is a cross-cutting issue. It's a failure of our economic system, energy system and so on,
and we have to deal with it in a more intersectional way than we've been doing in the past.
If we think about the past, what we've been doing in the past, how Greenpeace is, uh,
is trying to achieve climate action since it's, uh, been founded, a lot of things have changed.
Of course, there's been lots of lots of different individual shocks in the past that Greenpeace has been dealing with.
Geopolitical tensions have just shifted a lot over the last decades.
And at the same time, global governance itself has changed.
You mentioned the role of consultancies. For example. The way global governance is being done has has changed over the last decade.
So if we take all of that, how would you say can Greenpeace, as an organisation learn from its own past,
and how can it deal with this diversified and fractured global governance landscape that we have today?
The real imperative of Greenpeace and other international NGOs is to recognise that they cannot continue to operate.
We have operated historically that cannot continue to call themselves international when they actually the decision making,
the finance, the control and so on is very much in the global north.
That needs to change. So there's a big contradiction there.
We cannot say to governments and businesses we need to transition to an economy that's driven by clean,
green, renewable energy rather than an economy that's, you know, driven by dirty fossil fuel based energy.
Because when we say that to governments, we are not saying to them it's a walk in the park for you to do that.
We recognise that it has to be through a just transition, that it's complicated, that it'll take time and all of that.
So we can't be saying the science says you need to change in the substantive way on the one hand, and then on the other,
we say, oh, for us to become to balance the power between the global South and the global, not with the international NGOs.
Uh, we need about ten, 20 years to do that, you know, uh,
and put a different timeline of what we need to do to be fit for purpose versus what governments and business need to.
We should be ahead of the game anyway, because we are supposed to be the ones that are driven by public service in a much more fundamental way.
You know, we're not compromised by the profit or by power.
Yes. Well, that's the logic of it. Therefore, we should be significantly performing better in how we look and so on.
You know the sad reality. There are senior management teams of most international NGOs.
If you were to look at them, with a couple of exceptions, they are all led by very good people.
Let me just say good people from the global north.
But that doesn't matter how good they are, it's sending the wrong message that we still live in a colonial world,
which still means that the voices, perspectives, expertise,
capabilities of people from the global South are not valued in the same way as people who come from significantly more privileged,
uh, better education systems, more opportunity and so on.
Because, you know, the pathway for somebody like and, you know, like with, with Greenpeace,
I'm the first and the last person from Global South to be the head of Greenpeace, which is a 60 year old organisation.
That's just not good enough, in my judgement.
The ability to be as consistent with what you say and what you do is a critical success factor for the international NGO community going forward.
I think that they need to be shrinking the bureaucracies,
putting more resources to frontline communities who are facing whatever issues that they're facing,
especially on climate, but all the intersecting crises, and start moving in that direction.
Because the reality is that the power and impact of the international NGO community is on a decline right now,
international NGOs that still have an important role to play,
but that role can only be played if they look and feel as global as the challenges that they seek to address.
Kumi Naidoo, I want to thank you so much for your time, for generously sharing all this really,
really interesting experience and sharing your thoughts on where climate action and climate cooperation might go in the future,
might have to go in the future. Thanks so much, Kumi. Thank you very much.
You've been listening to Global Shocks, the podcast of the Oxford Martin programme on changing global orders.
My name is John. I'm a postdoctoral research fellow in international relations.
And I'm the host and producer of this podcast. If you enjoyed this episode, make sure to follow us and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Do have a look at the show notes for further reading on today's topic, as well as links to our website and social media channel.