Dana, CEO of GreaterShare joins us to talk about the philanthropic work they're doing with NGOs and private equity firms to solve global challenges together. She explains why the company was setup, how it works and what's in it for investors. We also discuss her concerns around the primacy of profits in today's economic climate and the difference between philanthropy in the US vs UK.

BWB is powered by Oury Clark

businesswithoutbullshit.me

You got the water, I got a pen.

Hello, and welcome to Business Without Bullshit.

I am Andy Orian and alongside me is my fabulous co host, Pippa Sturt.

Hi Andy.

And today we are joined by Dana Bezzera.

Uh, Dana is the uh, CEO of GreaterShare.

Prior to that, uh, Dana was president of the Heron Foundation.

Tell, how do I summarize the Heron?

I'm so stupid.

Heron was about helping people and communities to help themselves, in particular out of poverty, but in general, whatever they thought they needed, we wanted to empower.

That's brilliant.

And then, uh, Great to Share is Getting private equity and NGOs to work together better and invest or explain it better for us.

Sure.

So GreaterShare is a philanthropic investment model that is bringing together some of the highest impact NGOs and some of the highest performing private equity firms in the world to solve global challenges together.

Okay, and highest performing in what way?

So NGOs highest performing in terms of impact and their ability to convert resources to impact for people on place and planet.

And then highest performing private equity in terms of financial performance.

So really harnessing the investment acumen and wealth creation effect of private equity to provide reliable, repeatable, unrestricted revenue to non profits so they can do what they need to do.

And there's always this stuff about impact, you know, and having seen how they go and rate impact, it's an incredibly imprecise science.

It's just kind of like, we gave you some money, how well did it go?

Oh, it went very, very well.

We might need more money.

Oh, but it, I mean, pound for pound, we did very well.

So, I mean, how do they, how do they judge it on?

Yeah.

So this is a whole set of questions.

In the case of GreaterShare, currently we have one fund which is focused on global education.

So this is asking the question of, can you put the child at the center of their educational environment and figure out what they need, whether it's, uh, social services, food.

access to resources in order to advance their education, believing that education can be one of the great equalizers from an economic point of view.

Oh, so not getting in, because I was going to say curriculums are often government decided and things like this.

I mean, I don't fully follow it, but more saying, okay, this kid's trying to learn, but.

They're hungry or whatever, right.

Or they have a difficult situation at home.

So really child-centered, putting the child at the center and making sure they have what they need for success in their educational environment.

And what's the sell, if you like, to Private equity.

Yeah.

Yeah, absolutely.

So private equity, as you might imagine, there's a lot of fees.

Yes.

There's a lot of returns.

And a couple of things with our private equity partners.

They are long tenured, they tend to have outstanding track records, and they partner with us for a couple of reasons.

Our investors, number one, agree to give up half of their investment gain to engage in philanthropy together.

So our, our GPs, or our general partners on the private equity side, agree for those investors who are giving up half their gain, they will concede all the fee and carry associated with those investors also to the philanthropic side.

So it's really a pretty dynamic model.

If you think about governments or philanthropy, you're always redistributing the pie.

This is an interesting and unique way to actually grow the pie by people who may not be typically engaging in philanthropy otherwise.

Still though, what, I mean, what's in it for them?

I mean, still, they're going to give up half their fees.

They are.

And what do they get?

Advertising?

Feel good.

They get the feel good factor.

I mean, large investment people aren't famous for making decisions.

No, I'm not making them evil people, but their job is to make money, not to feel good.

But presumably, I mean, we've established that they're high performing private equity.

So they've got enough cash that they can...

feel good with some of it, right?

Correct.

They absolutely are feeling good with some of it.

The, there's brand associations, so any, any private equity firm typically wants their employees and their constituents to feel

like they're contributing to the betterment of people, place, and planet and partnering with GreaterShare is one way to do that.

It's also increasingly important to our younger employees that their firm is delivering some sort of value over and above economic value, so.

Okay, so it's keeping staff happy as well, in a way.

Absolutely.

The difference between VC and private equity fundamentally is that the VCs like the blue touch paper and stand well back, whereas a Private equity

is buying a majority stake or more than a majority stake in a business, the whole of the business, and then they're running it to make money.

Yeah.

So they're huge organizations probably going back decades with massive pools of money, billions and billions that they're investing.

And then within them as a culture.

You know, I think there's a clear connection that, oh, we need to look after the planet, and people want to buy things that are made right, and everything like that.

You know, how much is this, this, this, this juggernaut moving in that direction, do you think?

Yeah, so lots of them are.

In particular, all of GreaterShare's partners, in order to be a partner with GreaterShare, has something to say on what...

the markets would now call ESG.

So what are their environmental, social and governance goals or their outlines?

Or some of them have teams dedicated to ESG.

So yes, absolutely.

For a greater share to partner with somebody, they have to at least have things to say on ESG and ideally teams who are monitoring that in their investments.

Don't you think the G is always a bit of a let down.

Environmental, oh yeah, this is a big one, social, and then it's like, and then it's like paperwork.

We do, we do, we do, we're gonna, we're gonna save the planet, save the people and then we'll do some paperwork.

No, because if you haven't got your governance in place, you can do all sorts of terrible things as a company because there's nobody Internally saying, hang on a minute, that's not really appropriate.

Surely that's just the duty of the companies generally.

I mean they, they've got director's duties.

Yeah.

That's governance.

They need, they need to, not that is governance, but we already got it.

We don't need another system to say, oh, let's have more governance.

You know, they should be doing their governance.

What we need is to say, oh, by the way, you know, we should do something about the planet and the people, you know, tell that to all the pension pots that were raided in the 1990s.

Oh, yeah, but these are terrible directors.

Yes!

But we should prosecute directors.

Yes.

We should, you know, I mean...

Before they jump off their superyachts.

In this country, and America, and not in a lot of other countries, directors are so well protected.

I mean, you literally could drive your car down the street and kill everyone if it was a marketing campaign and probably get away with it.

You know, it's pretty terrible.

Okay, Donald.

No, but it is, I mean, as you say, some absolute atrocities have been, uh...

Yeah.

Anyway, rough point.

So, there's a big sort of movement.

Okay, we're going to get those people working together.

But it's, I think that's great because they must be like desperately trying to find the good people to, you know, to find or invest in.

So, are they sort of looking for you anyway, are they?

Private equity.

On the private equity side, sure.

So, I think private equity is always looking for good companies that they can scale and grow with and certainly turn a profit with.

But, as some of the advanced materials discussed, I don't think profit can just be...

primary any longer.

You're not really in a place where you can just generate profit and be deleterious to people, place, and planet.

So there is a comprehensive business view around how our institutional investors both inuring to profit, but also looking at things like human capital, civic capital, and social capital while inuring to profit.

I'll give you a quick example from, from my prior life where We wanted high headcount per dollar of revenue because we really wanted to employ people, right?

High headcount per dollar of revenue.

Okay.

Lots of people.

Yes, because we were coming through a recession.

Lots of people had been laid off.

And as an investor who cared about people, place and planet, we wanted high headcount per dollar of revenue because we wanted people to get back to work.

So we decided to torture all the data we could to find companies that had high headcount.

And these were.

So, companies that had a high headcount per dollar of revenue, and we focused intensively on that.

And after months and months of analysis, we came up with, keep in mind, we were an anti poverty organization.

If you wanted the highest headcount per dollar of revenue, the perfect investment were private prisons.

Wow.

Now, you might imagine, at a social justice entity, having the right answer, be private prisons, was a terrible day.

And we were in New York City, and we said, we are very happy that you could have all things delivered, because we spent the day sitting on the conference room floor,

ordering in Bloody Marys and bacon, trying to figure out what happened that data said the perfect investment for high headcount per dollar of revenue was private prisons.

And the reality is, to your point about complexity, That was the only data point we looked at.

We didn't think to look at all the other things you didn't look at when you were focused on that one data point.

So when you broaden your aperture, if you will, to focus on, yes, high headcount per dollar revenue, get people back to work, but what is your environmental footprint?

How does your business relate socially?

The use of torture and prisons in that paragraph was really quite impressive.

Okay.

Uh, yeah, very good.

So you've got to kind of get really, really into the data and look, look across it.

So why did you start this business?

Where's this come from?

So GreaterShare actually comes from, we have three founders, three principals who were all, uh, of the private equity business.

And I think in that instance, you, they were at a place in their life where they were very familiar with private equity.

They were also serving on a number of NGO boards, and they were having the same experience, which is lots of wealth creation and private equity, and then they

would serve on NGO boards, and they would find their very, very talented executives having to spend a ton of time fundraising because funding is fickle and slant.

So what they started asking was, could you take what they know, private equity and the wealth creation and the long time horizon and the investment acumen, and could you marry it to deliver?

The same long term, reliable, repeatable, unrestricted revenue to the NGOs.

That's the question they were trying to figure out.

Could we take this industry generating thing that we know and make lives easier for NGOs?

And in trying to solve for that, they created GreaterShare, the vehicle.

So investors come into GreaterShare.

Greater share moves their money to investment, which will generate returns.

And our investors take those returns, they take return of capital, but every dollar of gain they have over and above return of capital, they share with philanthropic endeavors.

In the case of the first fund, it's education.

In the case of the second fund, it'll be a different thing.

So, whoa, whoa, whoa.

Just slow that down a bit.

So, I invest in an NGO.

You invest in GreaterShare, who invests in private equity.

Invests in private equity, who invests in NGOs.

Nope, who invest in business to create return.

Yeah.

As the return flows back to the investor.

Half of it goes into the NGO.

Correct.

Half your gain.

Okay, half the gain.

Yes.

So you take some of the profits.

That's good.

You know, we, we actually slightly highlighted it before talking about the prisons thing.

I mean, the, the problem with the NGOs and charities and things like that is they just get stuck on every decision.

Because they, they sort of, you dial up the ethics, you know, you start having to say, well, everything, you know, and you've got five people and 20 trustees and everyone's, you know, I work with charities.

Now, you know, you can't get them isolated.

Simple thing side.

And so they're very, very inefficient.

I mean, it's, it can be, it's a real problem though, you know?

Yeah.

And a big part of the inefficiency factor is their funding is restricted.

So most funders think, think if you were Apple and you're creating, dating myself here, the iPod, if your investors come in saying, you can only use their money, For the iPod, you don't have any R& D function.

You don't have the opportunity to say, Oh, here's this other thing.

Let's go.

So, all NGO funding tends to be restricted, and it's a very difficult environment to operate in because they're only getting a dollar for things they've already shown.

So, the ability to think about the problems in their universe and decide how to address them them is very limited by the provision of, of unrestricted revenue, which is what we're trying to do.

So think of it as unrestricted dollars to say, management believes we need to move there.

We need to move from the iPod to an iPhone, which is capable of all these things.

How do you give NGOs the same liberty to design their future?

Give them an income stream is what you're saying.

Give them a statement.

Hand over the cash and tell them is great.

I think your idea is great.

But then.

They can't go and invest stuff in something really nasty and then give it, I mean, can they, I dunno.

I mean, do they then have to think about what they have to invest in anyway that they're gonna make money from?

Correct.

Okay.

They do.

They do.

And what's the rules?

You know, Christmas on the investment side or on the NGO side?

The investment side.

On, on the investment side.

Sure.

There are limits.

Like you may not wanna be part of, um, the drug supply system.

So things that, and you're into the opioid crisis for example.

Or you may not wanna be part of, uh, lots of people.

Correct.

That's where I was going.

Oh, all the classics.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm getting, I'm getting an idea for it.

So there's some ethics on both sides.

Absolutely.

There would have to be for our model, certainly.

And then do you get, they get this money forever?

No, they've then got to show what impact they're doing.

They've got to sort of report to you.

They do report, but the, the general idea is...

Private equity tends to be 10, call it 12 years in duration.

So the, the provision of support to the NGOs matches that period of time.

Okay.

If you get approved, then it's like, we're basically going to give to you like a charity.

Correct.

If somebody, if something goes really off on a ditch, then you can not fund them.

But the assumption going in is that the duration of the private equity matches the duration of support for the NGO so that they have runway and visibility into future revenues.

I don't know whether we all know what an NGO is, a non governmental, I mean, to me really it's like not for profit, which also doesn't mean anything in English law.

Correct.

It basically means charity.

It, it basically means you don't have shareholders who are going to get wealthy off your business.

Okay, that's what it means to you, yeah, okay.

Non profits can make a profit.

Yes, you're limited by guarantee.

All your straight charity, you know, that was, that's in English language.

Okay.

And then if, if someone's listening to this, how do you get in touch to say, we would love some of this money.

We're doing something good.

I'm sure, you know, I'm just going to ruin your life.

Yes.

Thank you for that.

The, um, so it doesn't work that way for us.

No.

I didn't think so.

With, with each fund, the private equity partners are selected at the outset and the NGO partners are selected at the outset.

So.

There's no rolling application process or anything like that.

When we, when we decide to start a second fund, it will be the same.

We will then vet and bring on.

So this is for kind of a 10 year, 12 year period.

Correct.

Yes.

The idea is really visibility into reliable revenue.

So it's a set basket.

If we do a second fund, then we'll have an open period where we'll evaluate new private equity partners in an open period.

We'll put your email address on the open internet.

I never even asked you what's keeping you up at night.

You asked that.

I was circling it.

I mean, what is keeping you up at night?

Yeah, I don't think this will surprise you given the conversation.

I worry a lot about the primacy of profits and shareholder primacy, which is super nerdy.

Primacy?

Yeah, the notion historically that in business, profit trumps all.

That you're generally speaking allowed to do what you need to do in order to generate profits.

That, that keeps me up a fair amount.

I used to get asked a lot if our style of mission or social investing necessarily meant that we were willing to endure a give up in return in order to have impact.

And, uh, I think the flip side of that coin, which we have to wrestle with as a society, is if we believe that's true, that by caring about other things, you will have a give up in return.

Give up means?

Less than.

Less than.

You would make less than.

Right.

Then I think that necessarily means in our current system, The returns we're getting today are artificially inflated by the ability to offload externalities onto society.

Okay, I did not, I'm really sorry, I didn't understand a word of that.

Yeah, some of it is, a lot of it is, um, the, the vernacular, the sort of where we're in is very specific there, and the American...

The ability to offload ex...

Externalities on society.

Can you just explain, right.

You basically leave the society with the problems and make a profit, correct?

Yeah, yeah.

Correct.

That society can have all the problems and I'm gonna generate the profit.

Do you know, I find, um, it's very American.

Um, 'cause America sort of, there's a phrase, you know, um, it's always in the American films.

Oh, it's business, you know, this is business.

Yes.

Which basically means.

F ethics.

It's not personal.

It's business.

Yeah, but it basically means in that film, there are no ethics how I make money.

Yes.

And this was this Wall Street.

Yeah, it's in every bloody, and actually in Britain, it doesn't ring true at all.

We say it here sometimes, but here, that is not okay.

Like you are, you are in the world.

You know, making money is not as important as your word or doing the right thing.

So, you know, someone said it in a very amusing way to me years ago, an Australian who spent years living in America.

He says, you know, in America, ultimately, God is, you know, money and your priest is your lawyer because he's going to tell you whether you legally made the money or illegally.

There's no concept of ethics about making money.

It's just whether it was legal or illegal, whereas we don't.

Think like that, you know, as, as, as Brits generally, I mean, there's sure there's terrible people out there who are very money focused and all they care about is that and their haircut because they're

narcissistic bastards, but, you know, as a Brit, if me and Pippa knew each other and we go on really well and we're working together, I couldn't screw her, like, without feeling quite a lot of problems.

Oh, thanks man, that's good to know.

No, but I, you know, it's So the whole, like, you know, you've, you've, Well, I feel safe in my job.

Well, the Australian's example was this.

He'd lived in America for years, and he said, I did this, I put a company together with my best friend in America, we were best

friends for five years, and we went and had some drinks to celebrate, and he said, you know, with this contract, I can screw you.

And he was like, what?

Why did you just say that?

And he was like, I'm just letting you know that the contract's in my favor and I could.

And he was like, I mean, is this the end of our friendship?

What the hell are you saying to me?

Like, this contract's meaningless.

It's a piece of paper.

This is about us going into business in good faith, you know?

So, the thing that bothers you is the way that you do find companies focused on profit.

Correct.

And that is your experience.

Companies and investors.

So, I would almost argue, again, in the public markets perhaps more, but Private markets as well, because that's the orientation of the investors.

It becomes the orientation of business.

Yeah.

And even angel investors, you know, even if you've got these small investors that are investing, they're not normally investing

out of the good of their hearts or because they think that the business they're investing in is going to be incredibly ethical.

Right.

Or, you know, do amazing.

Good.

They are generally investing because they've got some spare money and if they put it in a bank, it's not gonna Even now get much of an interest rate on it.

Correct.

You better at philanthropy in America though So the swing of it is here we're shit at get individuals are shit at giving whereas, you know Particularly in places like Texas and stuff.

I understand they're mad for it.

Apparently they are they give away their eyes Dana's making a facial expression which says No, they're not.

Yeah.

I mean, do you, you know, what is my ethical duties at America?

Yeah.

Well, first of all, ethical duties, I don't think it raises to that level, but I will say it goes with your earlier point.

You have a much more well established and robust social system.

Yeah.

So in a, in a environment like the U S where, um, gains are so much the domain of investors, then I think you have more robust philanthropy in part because there is a massive gap between the social system.

and wealth, that philanthropy fills that gap.

Here, you have a much larger social safety net.

Would you think what an average, an average American, well, let's not do an average, America's got a few quid.

So, you know, not a sort of, we would call them upper middle class and above you, you really think probably should be giving away some money.

Shouldn't you, you bastard.

Do you think they do?

Do you think most Americans do, or not at all?

I think there is a larger philanthropic tradition than there is here, but I don't think it would be fair to say it's widely spread in the States.

Yeah, okay.

And then establishing, establishing a philanthropic tradition within It's really there for your passion to try and talk to these people more, and you've given them a great model.

It's like, yeah, you know, pick the winners.

Absolutely.

I think, I think it's a little bit like Sherpa, you know, showing people how to do it.

There's a lot of will, there's a lot of want to, but how to do it and how to do it well is, is a challenge, and you inevitably

have a competitive environment where people genuinely are concerned, which seems crazy, but whether or not they will give well.

Or whether or not they will invest well if they try to start introducing additional factors beyond profit.

And now a quick word from our sponsor.

You can find us at oryclark.

com.

Uh, what do you think is bullshit in your industry then?

I mean we've got discussed before but And my industry I'll say broadly over the last 20 years call it the impact investing space so I would say altruism that anybody has

the answer to doing it right or doing it Well is total bullshit to be honest altruism is trying to do the right thing Isn't it altruism caring for others or something?

Yes Yeah.

Think about other people rather than yourself.

But, but saying you can do that.

particularly well through an investment lens and that you have figured it out is total bullshit.

It's really hard to do, and it's really complicated.

And the, the reality is anybody who spends any amount of time trying to actually do that will appreciate the great and deep complexity.

Give us an example.

I'm sort of trying to apply this.

So someone says they can solve poverty in India or new would be small, wouldn't it?

We could improve, I dunno, gimme an example.

Yeah, I'll, I'll give you a quick example.

So there's a, a type of lending product in the states that allows people to do energy retrofits to their homes, right?

So that was, um, greatly promoted as a great thing for the environment and everybody should be doing that.

And it's a.

Perfect style of investment.

The trouble is, forgive me for being nerdy here, what didn't get noticed, because it was only viewed through the lens of the environmental effect, which was positive, was that that lien became the senior most lien on someone's home.

Lien being charged over a house.

Yes.

And, and, it was not well described.

It became a tax lien.

So, when people could not stroke the additional tax, which they weren't well informed about often.

Stroke, uh, not pay.

Yeah.

It would cascade them into foreclosure.

So, if you were looking at it, It comes to 2008.

Correct.

Yeah.

And so, if you're only focused on the environmental side, which a lot of colleagues were and proclaimed it to be a wonderful and delightful investment, it was.

But if you looked more broadly, back to that broad aperture, it's not a great thing if it's causing people, You're throwing loads of people into poverty.

Correct.

So it's really hard to come up with strategies that help people make money and everything, everything's good.

Win wins.

Is that what you're saying?

We started to refer to it as, as a net contribution or a net gain.

Like across the environmental effect and across, across the, the financial effect, across the human effect.

Is it positive when you take all those things into account?

And in this example, it was very positive environmentally.

It was very negative for humans and for society.

I mean...

Got to look at the unintended consequences.

I'll stop.

I mean that thi this is, you know, to our previous discussion, this is tax hands down.

You know, they write all these strict rules and then they want to try and help certain industries.

So you write in reliefs and everything's gray.

It's not even necessarily, you know, someone's like, well, does this apply to me or not?

It's hard to understand and they get all the information and it does or it doesn't Correct.

And then, you know, it's, it's, it's complex.

But we're having is actually that debate in the UK because it's gonna cost, everybody's got gas boilers.

They should have, what they called?

Heat pumps, heat pumps.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of pounds.

Correct.

Enormous sums.

And the electricity cost is going to go up.

We talked about this on before.

It was like the quote was as much to do my whole extension.

Anyone would like to do my house would be, I don't know, 80, 000 pounds.

So you'd have to put in underfloor heating and I mean, I mean, think of all those people you'd be employing to do it though.

You'd be, it would be a great positive on the world in general.

Just I mean, underfloor heating, or I could just not have an extension.

It's like, you know, the project doesn't happen.

It's just like.

Oh, well, the good news is darling.

Anyway, so the idea that these sort of, you know, anyone who's and you you're saying that so you must be sitting around tables where there's people at the table going, Oh, it's fantastic.

I've got this, which is very American.

I think it's fantastic in America.

You know, everyone's like, you know, how you it's like, Oh, things are going very, very well in my department.

Yes.

So getting to get into the tree.

Is that where that's coming from?

Yeah, it really is coming from this this, um, Um, Absolute desire to view things through your lens and nobody else's lens and, and to proclaim things positive through this lens with a refusal to look more broadly.

Basically people were going, yeah, it's absolutely fantastic.

We've had 10, 000 boilers installed and all of these people would be bankrupt and homeless within five years.

Correct.

You know, with the boiler not being used.

Correct.

Great environmental impact, they're going to downsize.

Correct.

I just think that's a general inability.

I do emphasize full stop.

I think that's it.

Not not a question.

We're addressing today But I think this this care and nurture the sense of mutual responsible For each other mutuality is a big part of what's lacking

Generally speaking in in both civil discourse and in the investment world for sure Okay, so we're gonna do a five second rule, short questions, quick answers.

Never works out.

Okay, good, thank you.

Deque the music, uh, hopefully you know the answer to these questions.

What was your first job?

Feeding calves.

Uh, what was your worst job?

Pulling tissue samples on tomato plants.

Putting tissue samples.

Pulling.

Pulling.

So taking tissue samples from tomatoes.

Correct.

If you say tomato, I say tomato.

I've always wanted to say that.

Have a moment there.

And there you have it.

Um, favorite subject at school?

Math.

Mathematics?

Yes.

Uh, what's your special skill?

Uh, connecting people.

Okay.

Okay.

What did you want to be when you grew up?

Uh, veterinarian.

Hence the calves.

Uh, what, um, Oh, this conversation.

Anyway, well, Cause I'm thinking of legs now.

I knew that was where massive calves.

I wish.

I don't know if we'd have big or small calves, it's hard to know.

I've got a very, remind me to tell you a story about massive calves after this.

Okay, we must go there.

Uh, what did your parents want you to be when you grew up?

Anything that didn't rely on them.

On them.

Okay.

Very good.

Okay.

That's a good motivation.

Self sufficient.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

What's your go to karaoke song?

Anything by Garth Brooks, embarrassingly.

Probably Friends in Low Places.

Oh, we wouldn't have a clue in this country.

Only one song made it here.

uh, Friends in Low Places?

No, it's a little bit unfair, I'd lie.

It's like when people ask me to rap, it's like, well, uh, No, it did say that on your bio, so I'm quite curious.

I don't know whether to put it there or not, but I decided I'm not going to shy away from these things anymore.

Um, office dogs, business or bullshit?

Oh, business.

Oh, very good.

Have you ever been fired?

Yes, I have.

Ooh, let's quickly ask the other one and then get back to that.

Uh, what's your vice?

Uh, cookie dough.

Cookie dough?

In any form?

Do you know what, that's not really something we have in the UK.

No, we do in ice cream.

What, you eat it just as dough?

I just make it to eat it.

It never gets baked in my house.

It's a big joke.

Oh, wow.

Never, ever.

So, this is where we're gonna give you 30 seconds to pitch whatever you like.

Oh, great!

Well, I think I would just pitch greater share.

And as we sort of, uh, opened...

It is a philanthropic investment model that really is trying to bring together high performing NGOs with historically high performing private equity partners to try and solve global challenges together.

Very different viewpoints and very different perspectives.

Brilliant.

Perfect.

So that's it.

There you have it.

Thank you very much, Dana.

Thank you, Pippa.

Thank you Dee.

Thank you Anton.

Uh, that was this week's episode of Business Without Bullshit, and we'll be back with b w B extra on Thursday.

Until then, it's chow.