Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Welcome to Sustainable Fuchsias; the podcast that engages, empowers and excites you about sustainability.
With 15 years' experience in corporate sustainability and human rights, Bex is on a mission to empower as many women as possible to engage in sustainability; whether through their choices as consumers, increased general knowledge or even their career paths.
From interviews with industry leaders, to breaking down jargon, to career and confidence advice; the podcast is every woman's sustainability confidence booster.
Hello, everyone. Welcome to sustainable futures, the podcast that engages, empowers, and excites you about sustainability. I'm Bex Hall, an international expert in corporate sustainability and human rights. With fifteen years of experience, my goal is to share my knowledge as widely as possible and engage more women in sustainability, whether that's through their careers, general interest, or day to day consumer activities. From interviews with industry leaders to breaking down jargon to career and confidence advice, this podcast will be your sustainability confidence booster.
Speaker 1:Hello, everybody. Welcome to the first ever episode of Sustainable Futures. I'm thrilled to launch this series with our first guest, the incredible Paula Fudakowska, who is joining us today from Switzerland. Paula is a public international law and human rights lawyer based near Geneva. She has a varied human rights focused practice, which includes advising global businesses and understanding the potential applicability and implications of sustainability and human rights due diligence regulation.
Speaker 1:She also brings her litigation experience and expertise to a Geneva based NGO, which builds claims and universal jurisdiction to fight impunity for war crimes. Paula started her career as an international law firm in London and Geneva, advising international clients on complex cross border wealth disputes. After fifteen years doing this, she left private practice to develop her public international law and human rights expertise as a legal adviser at the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office in London and Geneva. Paula, what an introduction. Oh my goodness.
Speaker 1:What a varied career. I'm so so excited to have you on this today to teach us more about what you do and some current hot topics and your career path so far. So thank you so so much for joining us today.
Speaker 2:Thank you so much for having me. I'm excited to be here.
Speaker 1:So having said all of that, I'd absolutely love to start with your career path, which is so so interesting. Do you think you could shed a little bit of light on the work that you've done so far? How you arrived at working in business and human rights law? And and also I think for the audience, what you think the impact of your day to day work is.
Speaker 2:Thanks, Bex. So, yeah, I think, you know, as you've very succinctly, summarized, you know, I started my career at an international law firm as a litigator. And it was a, well, a fascinating job to have. It took me all over the world and, got me involved with, some of the most interesting problems for families, with international affairs and, who were navigating pretty tricky moments, either for their business or for their family dynamics. And there then came a moment, in my career where I just wanted my work to have a bigger impact on a larger group of people.
Speaker 2:So, more of a societal impact. And that's what, took me, to Geneva where I, continued working for the firm, but at the same time studying for a master's in human rights. And that was sort of the first step into, public international law. And that LLM, then took me onto my first role sort of in the human rights sphere at the, Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, where I had, the privilege of, splitting my time in London and in Geneva and working on some of the most interesting topics facing, the UK government at that time. And that also included advising on human the development of human rights policy, which was really fascinating and took me also into the business and human rights sphere.
Speaker 1:It must have done. And if you don't mind me interrupting, how did you find that process of studying whilst also being at an international law firm? Was that difficult to manage your time or how how did you find that experience?
Speaker 2:Yes. It was challenging, but there was also a recognition that I needed time to do that. And so I was very fortunate to, you know, have an arrangement which worked for both sides. And I often say to people that it actually felt quite like quite a relief going back to my desk in the office and advising on, you know, topics which I had far more experience of than all the new fascinating matters that I'm studying. So, yes.
Speaker 2:And then that job took me to basing myself in Geneva more permanently and and and bringing me into, you know, these two roles that I do, currently. One of which is, of course, in the business and human rights sphere.
Speaker 1:So with all of that, thank you for for giving that background to everybody. And it's also really interesting for me to learn more about, you know, what you were up to before we met. I'd love to know a little bit more about the impact of the work that you do. So whether that is focusing on the sort of human rights law side of things in the corporate work or the broader work that you do in other areas, it would be really interesting to understand, yeah, how how that influences businesses and sustainability and and the impact of that.
Speaker 2:Of course. I think focusing in particular on the sustainability piece and ESG, I think the impact of, you know, our work has many different facets. We assist businesses in interpreting complex legal obligations and ensuring that, then businesses avoid penalties and reputational damage. So that is, I think, pretty impactful. We help to identify, you know, potential ESG related risks, such as climate change impact and supply chain vulnerabilities.
Speaker 2:Often, we're asked to, you know, work alongside the clients and develop strategies to mitigate these risks, thereby protecting the business from financial and operational disruptions. And of course, we also help to create accurate and verifiable ESG reporting, which helps to avoid the risks associated with greenwashing. And by enhancing the credibility of that ESG reporting increases the transparency and accountability, which then in turn for the business builds trust with investors and customers, employees, and other stakeholders. So I think in summary, we play a vital role in helping businesses navigate the complexities of the ESG space and sustainability, and thereby enabling them to create long term value while contributing to, what we hope is a more sustainable future.
Speaker 1:It's a huge range of things that you do. A keyword, I think, that I'm hearing there is reporting, in a lot of the work that you do, and then it's the activities that surround that reporting and helping organizations to prepare for it, make sure the data's in place, the processes are in place. And I think I'd I'd love to explore that a little bit more with our discussion today. So one of the topics and buzzwords, if you like, that's been flying around for the last few months, in particular, within the sustainability and the business and human rights industry or field of practice is the omnibus. For anybody who is listening who is unfamiliar with the omnibus, if you Google it, you'll be able to find out quite a lot about it.
Speaker 1:And what you'll probably see is that there's been a huge amount of sort of uproar really about some of the pending proposed changes and the potential impact of that on businesses, society, and kind of the world in general. So I think, Paola, given your expertise, I'd love to hear from you, your take on what's going on with the Omniverse at the moment, what it is, what the sort of noise and fuss is about, and any insights that you have as to why it has hit the headlines.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Of course. So for those who may not be familiar with this piece of regulation, it's basically piece of legislation coming out of the EU, which has the aim to simplify and consolidate the European Union's complex sustainability reporting requirements. And the core goal is to streamline and simplify effectively the ESG regulatory framework. Specifically, this piece of regulation targets a number of other directives and and regulations which have been in the press in the last year or so, namely the corporate sustainability reporting directive, the EU taxonomy regulation, and then the corporate sustainability due diligence directive.
Speaker 2:The intention is broadly to reduce the administrative burden on businesses, particular small and medium sized enterprises, while maintaining the essential objectives of sustainability reporting. Now the reason that all of this has generated the headlines is well, there are a number of reasons. There's this drive for simplification.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:There are a number of jurisdictions, and companies in those jurisdictions who have been complaining quite loudly about what a burden all of this regulation has on businesses and their ability to keep up. And that has sparked a debate. But equally, there are concerns that simplifying the regulations might weaken the progress made in sustainability reporting. There are also discussions about balancing the need for clear consistent reporting with a desire to reduce the regulatory load on businesses. And the proposed changes are happening during a time where there is an increased focus on ESG and any change to the regulations are therefore very highly scrutinized.
Speaker 2:And these changes are also happening during a time where the EU is trying to increase its competitive edge on the global stage. And some leaders feel that the current regulations as they currently stand are hindering this. So, these proposed changes are aimed to reduce reporting requirements by about 25% in relation very specifically to the directives and regulations I already mentioned. But nevertheless, all of this is still subject to approval by the European Parliament and Council. So a lot could change between now and when that happens.
Speaker 1:It feels like in in the pieces that I've read in the the updated proposal and things that it feels as though the potential reductions are larger than 25%, certainly in terms of the numbers of businesses that would be, you know, no longer in scope of the various pieces of legislation. And I think also speaking from the perspective of someone who works with businesses in their supply chains, which I guess will come to you shortly, but the particularly in the CS triple d, there's a proposal that looking at your supply chain due diligence is no longer gonna be to raw material level. It's just your tier one. For most organizations, that's a vast reduction. That's far more than a 25% reduction.
Speaker 1:That might be like a 90 reduction of the work that you would have to do. So it's interesting that that's the figure that is being used in discussing these, like, you know, potential changes.
Speaker 2:I mean, that could be, you know, perhaps set at its lowest. But I think it'll be hard to actually see what the practical outcome is until it's clear which parts of these proposals are actually going to be implemented. Absolutely.
Speaker 1:And I suppose we have I think it's I think the goal is to have the the consultation period is open now, I believe. And then I think that's gonna go on and then ideally ideally trying to reach some sort of conclusion about what the changes will be and then get them sort of written up for the end of the year. But given it has already taken multiple years to get to this point, I'm not sure if that's perhaps a bit ambitious.
Speaker 2:Absolutely. And I think in the meantime, businesses need to continue with what is currently in place. And that means those three instruments that I mentioned, you know, complying with the existing deadlines and requirements that stand in those instruments.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Absolutely. And I think I think that's the the advice that's been widely shared by by other practitioners as well. Because if there's a potential that the changes might not come into place and it carries on as it is, and even if it doesn't, there's obviously so many other laws that businesses need to comply with that do require similar requirements and activities as well as obviously the actual benefits to business, the strategic benefits, the risk management benefits of putting these due diligence pieces in place, and and obviously the reporting sits on top of that. Is there anything else that you would sort of add to the discussion about this?
Speaker 1:So potentially the the impact on businesses and and maybe why that's come about in terms of the potential changes.
Speaker 2:Well, I think it could be interesting just to look at, you know, more specifically in relation to, for example, the corporate sustainability record reporting directive. You know, what those changes might mean for businesses because I suspect those that own this space and listening to us might actually be interested in some more of the detail. So I think I've already mentioned, you know, the simplification of the reporting requirements. And the primary focus in relation to the CRSD is to reduce the volume of information that the businesses are required to disclose Mhmm. With the aim of alleviating that administrative burden because it's particularly felt by smaller companies who don't have armies of people and nor do they have the resources to focus just on sustainability.
Speaker 2:And then there are some changes which aim to eliminate overlapping reporting requirements. And there's been quite a lot of discussion about that in connection with CSR RD and then CSR triple d. Yeah. So, yes. I mean, that that those sound like, you know, quite useful changes and certainly to give them some consideration within the wider context.
Speaker 2:Then a second issue, I suppose, would be the due diligence obligations. You've mentioned, you know, the changes to the level of due diligence required of companies regarding their value chain. Mhmm. And there is intended to be a a reduction in that. So, you know, let's actually in practice what does that mean for different companies at different levels.
Speaker 2:And then, of course, there's just the impact on businesses that although this is meant to ease their reporting and administrative burden, it's not meant to alleviate them from their obligations. Businesses are still expected to maintain robust sustainability practices and ensure that they still provide meaningful information to stakeholders. So I think all in favor of making the regulations less burdensome, but also, you know, there are concerns around the impact on other stakeholders. And I know you have some thoughts on that, specifically in relation to the CS triple d.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I do. I think I think one of the things that has really struck me with with the recent news, particularly, let's say, the last three or four weeks as the the proposed changes were were leaked and then were published, is that something that's been really lost in this noise is the impact on broader stakeholders that are not just businesses. Because whilst I absolutely agree that we don't want businesses to be spending all of their time that is allocated to sustainability or due diligence on reporting and metrics. You really want them to be able to be empowered to spend their time on actually making change, on identifying problems, on remediating them strategically and sort of systematically building programs that prevent those problems in the first place.
Speaker 1:It's it's been really interesting that almost nobody has actually come back and said, well, if these regulations are reduced, if the proposal does go ahead so let's take that example of supply chain due diligence only needing to be done on the first tier, not potentially down to lower tiers based on risk priority. What happens to the workers in those lower tiers? If the current state of the legislation would put businesses responsible to be doing that due diligence to be driving positive change in terms of, for instance, ensuring that there is no forced labor and making sure that workers are treated well, paid well, that they're safe and healthy in the workplace. Without that obligation, that potentially opens a very big gap for the abuse of workers further down the supply chain that may then not get addressed. And I think it's also really interesting when we also consider that CS triple d also has environmental elements into it, you could say the same thing there.
Speaker 1:That if the sort of buying organizations or the initial organizations in scope within Europe and some in other territories as well are no longer actually looking at, well, what is the environmental impact down the supply chain? What are the suppliers doing? Is the pollution? Are there, you know, issues at stake here? Again, it just I think it opens up a can of worms that those behaviors that current due diligence and effective due diligence actually as they identifies, mitigates, and and remedies, they could potentially become a really big problem again.
Speaker 1:And and I do think that that that is a challenge. And I think the other thing you've mentioned about alignment and, again, this sort of the proposition and the proposal that's been put forward aiming to simplify things, reduce these burdens, and also create alignment between the different pieces of legislation that exist. I think in some ways, that's helpful because a lot of businesses, as you pointed out, have been a bit caught between competing priorities. Like, are we focusing on our double materiality assessment, or are we focusing on our supply chain mapping? What are we doing?
Speaker 1:Ideally, they should all come part and parcel and should be, you know, done as part of a cohesive program, but not every organization does have the ability to do that, whether that's internal capacity, whether it's budget, whether it's internal knowledge. We're not certain. But, again, something that I personally am a little bit concerned has been lost is that one of the main complaints, if you like, around the legislation in the first place was a lack of clarity and guidance. It wasn't necessarily about the actual scope of the regulation. It was about the clarity over how do I implement this to that scope and how do I do that over a set period of time.
Speaker 1:Obviously, that guidance has not surfaced because of the fact that they've now done these proposed changes. But I do hope that in the discussion and in the consultation period that that isn't lost, that actually there are a great number of businesses who have either already put programs in place in sort of expectation of needing to comply and wanting to be compliant going forward, but also those who actually are complying with other laws around the world or who have their own visions and missions that are sustainability focused and have been embedded in the business already. So I really hope that those people do get a voice in this, and it isn't just about let's strip everything out, simplify it, streamline it. It can actually be a balanced discussion on what should happen going forward. And I suppose the final thing that I had I'd had a thought about on this, and I would love your opinion on as well, is that there's been so much conversation about, and I think you mentioned it in your introduction as well, that the legislation and certain leaders within the EU have been concerned that things like the CS triple d, CSRD are putting European businesses at risk because of the burden of sustainability activity and potentially not having such, like, an economic strong point in one thing or another.
Speaker 1:I would argue that that might not necessarily be the case because you now have an unequal situation where you do have businesses around the world who do have these programs in place. So let's think about Canadian businesses who have to have supply chain due diligence, which is what I'm focusing on at the moment. You know, they do have to have supply chain due diligence in place because of bill s two eleven. But now European businesses who potentially won't have to have that in place under EU law, but perhaps do under Canadian law, are at a disadvantage because they're gonna have to implement these programs anyhow and then potentially be at a disadvantage to those around them if if we're gonna take that approach. Personally, I never think supply chain due diligence is a disadvantage.
Speaker 1:I think it's actually really strategically important, particularly for risk management. And, again, with the companies who are going to have to have this due diligence in place, they will have if they're they're doing it successfully, they will have a much stronger and resilient supply chain. They will have much better risk analysis, risk identification, and being able to tackle those risks ahead of time than the companies that don't have that in place and then potentially risk a lot of supply chain disruption, operational shutdown, legal challenge from other nation states, etcetera. So I I just think it's perhaps not as in practice when you're working with businesses on these topics. I think it's it's really important that that practical element is taken into consideration as they go through this consultation period.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Absolutely. And I think that last point you made is a really interesting one. I think particularly medium to larger businesses Mhmm. There are many of them who have built sustainability into their business strategy, into their governance, into their frameworks.
Speaker 2:And they're already set up to be able to meet these some, you know, onerous requirements. So even if, you know, some of these changes are introduced, it's perhaps not necessarily going to follow that they will just roll back on what they're already doing because it's already embedded. But it's going to be perhaps, it's just going to perhaps offer a bit of breathing space for those smaller organizations where what they're being required to do at the moment is incredibly time consuming and unclear. I think like you said, there's so many interpretations.
Speaker 1:The clarity of guidance. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And that's also a helpful thing because it means as long as you're interpreting in a sensible way and that you can justify it, then, you know, hopefully that works. Yeah. But obviously, it does leave companies in a really uncertain situation until they've done their first couple of rounds of reporting and see how that's received by the local authorities, and indeed also by, stakeholders and those engaging with that information. So, yeah, like you say, great that there's a consultation period, and let's see what comes out of it.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Absolutely. So moving on from the omnibus. I'd love it if we could also talk about some of the other pieces of legislation that you've been supporting businesses with. I think we've we've given, some good discussion and food for thought around the omnibus, But I know you also talked about supporting organizations with legislation on on packaging.
Speaker 1:So I'd love to learn a bit more about your experience there.
Speaker 2:Specifically focusing on the EU packaging and packaging waste directive, which has then given rise to EU member states having to implement that at national level. So just by way of background, these regulations demonstrate this global trend towards making producers of packaging and packaging waste more accountable for the end of life management of their packaging. And there is this increased effort to align these regulations across different jurisdictions, particularly within the EU to create a more harmonized approach. And effectively, these obligations shift the financial and or organizational responsibility for waste management from taxpayers and municipalities to the producers of the packaging. Mhmm.
Speaker 2:So that's actually quite a big shift and a big impact on businesses. But in turn, it also encourages the producers of that packaging to design a material that is more sustainable, recyclable, and reusable. Reduces are typically required to contribute financially to the collection sorting and recycling disposable of of the waste. And, these contributions often then fund these, what are known as PROs, producer responsibility organizations that manage the processes. But that, you know, the positive side of all of this is that there are mechanisms to incentivize, you know, good design, recyclability, all of those sorts of issues through a fee structure where they can get, you know, reimbursements or reduced fees.
Speaker 2:So that there is an attraction there, obviously. And increasingly, producers also required to provide detailed data on the types and quantities of packaging that they're placing on the market. Yeah. And then this data is used to monitor compliance and assess the effectiveness of these programs.
Speaker 1:Okay. Yeah. It's a really interesting space, and I love being able to have this discussion with you because I come at a lot of this from the perspective of the businesses actually trying to implement these things, like figuring out which of the PROs they should be registering with, which taxes they're paying, how they adapt their products. And so it's really interesting to be able to hear it more from the legal perspective and and that kind of structural perspective as well. So when you're when you're working with organizations on this and have been recently, what are some of the the key trends that you're seeing around EPR legislation and and packaging and so forth?
Speaker 2:Certainly, there have been quite a few instruments coming out in various countries on plastic and reducing plastic waste. And so a lot of these packaging schemes are expanding to cover a wider range of packaging materials with that emphasis on addressing the environmental impacts of plastic packaging. Think regulations are requiring, you know, increasingly more data. So really getting down to, you know, specific polymer types and packaging formats, which yes. It it sounds pretty overwhelming at first.
Speaker 2:But it's really forcing producers to, you know, look at the impact of what they are producing and where it's going to end up in the chain. Certainly, there seems to be a strong push to ensure that packaging is truly recyclable in practice, and that that's not just a claim that's being made. And so that's encouraging recyclability assessment methodologies to be implemented and to determine how easy it is for this packaging to be recycled. And there is also this emphasis, I think you've mentioned it already on gathering of, you know, accurate data concerning the amounts and types of packaging that are being placed on the market, which, you know, again, is a challenge for businesses, but it means that it's forcing them to, look at that really precisely. And I suppose one of the challenges, especially for truly international corporations, is how these compliance obligations differ between different countries and how you sort of navigate your way around that and keeping up with these frequent changes and updates to regulations.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Of course, all of this comes at an increased cost. And that's something that businesses are having to build into their sort of their offering, making sure that they have the right number of experts internally, but also using the right experts externally to ensure that they are able to, you know, meet their obligations.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I feel like with when we talk about particularly I'm particularly focused on European sort of EPR legislation, that lack of consistency is a real problem. I would possibly argue more so than the topic we just discussed because, as you said, the the varying different criteria in different countries about the levies that you pay, the taxes, what types of particularly when focusing on plastic and then sort of composites, so plastic paper and mixed materials. When the regulation is all different, if you're a food company, let's say, and you're packaging your food products in ideally the same set of packaging for health and safety and for food hygiene reasons, but then you're being taxed on different amounts in certain places or certain types of plastic based on their composite structure are forbidden or have to be tweaked and changed or can't be recycled this way, have to be labeled another way. I think that inconsistency is quite mind blowing for people.
Speaker 1:One thing I'm interested in sort of mentioning the labeling and and the composition of plastics is your opinion on how much consumer behavior has influenced these pieces of legislation, whether it's something that you think has come into play in terms of consumers wanting to be able to reduce waste, recycle things properly, and and how you're seeing that that interaction with the businesses you work with.
Speaker 2:Yes. There's certainly an element of that. I think there are increasing concerns in the general population about waste and how is it being managed and where is it going. And, you know, the impacts that that has, for example, like plastic waste, you know, the detrimental effect it has on ecosystems and of course, also human health. And I think people are becoming more familiar with terminology like circular economy.
Speaker 2:What is it trying to achieve? You know, that reusability of resources that we don't have, you know, these vast resources which will be around forever. And that concern around future generations and starting to conduct ourselves in a way now that will put us in a good place in the future. Yeah. I think, you know, consumers are increasingly looking at the carbon footprint perhaps of the things that they are buying, and, you know, making choices accordingly and actually choosing not to buy that particular thing, has been shipped in from the other side of the world, but actually supporting a producer more locally.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Definitely. I I think that is quite a big thing, and it's also been really interesting. I I can't speak for other European countries, but having looked at some data from The United Kingdom recently about customer behavior in terms of packaging specifically, there's so much push from customers that packaging information regarding recycling in specific is really overwhelming and confusing, and it obviously depends where you are within the country. And I imagine this would be the the case in other territories as well.
Speaker 1:But, you know, in certain places, you can't recycle certain types of plastics because the local authorities don't have the facilities. And then in others, you can. And then so I think that does also link in. It's sort of almost like a trickle down effect that you've got the the national legislation in terms of what businesses have to do, in terms of what their packaging is, the taxes, the labeling, etcetera. But then that labeling also has to be sensible and actually instructive to the consumer as well to make sure that they aren't then binning something that is compostable or recyclable, whatever that that might look like.
Speaker 1:And I think that's a really interesting intersection intersection that some companies seem to have handled very well and others, I think there's probably room for improvement now over time.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 1:So I think with with all the the legal chat, it would be great to turn a little bit, I think, to learn a little bit more again about some of the work that you've done. And if you have any tips for anyone who might be listening who is interested in a career trajectory such as yours, so working within sustainability, working within human rights law or law more sort of generally in this field. If you have any sort of final tips or or, you know, stories or anything that you'd like to share with the listeners, that would be fantastic.
Speaker 2:Speaking from a lawyer's perspective, if you like. I suppose my advice for those starting their careers or those looking to move into this, you know, sustainability sector with a desire to work internationally, certainly from my experience, I would say, you know, see what relevant masters programs or diplomas are available, and the location of those. For example, I chose Geneva for my human rights masters because I see it as a center for human rights. There's the UN, the NGOs. There's a huge network
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Of not only organizations, but fora where you can meet with people and keep your finger on the pulse, so to speak, as to what's going on in more broadly the human rights arena. And it was a chance to then build and develop my network in Geneva. But of course, further study may not be for everyone. And so then I think other ways of getting involved and getting closer to the action, if you like, is consider attending the wealth of online events and in person events that are taking place. So many organizations are hosting those in order to promote their own thought leadership.
Speaker 2:And it means you will hear from thought leaders in the space who are also likely to be recruiters, you know, for example, like the big four consultancy firms who are very much seeking to make their mark, in this space. But not only those, there are also, other human rights due diligence consultancies and, of course, law firms building, ESG practices. And I think going from there, you can identify who works in those teams and using tools like, you know, the website or LinkedIn. You can reach out to people, and ask for a chat or a coffee. I think you'll be surprised how many people actually respond and are willing to do that.
Speaker 2:If people enjoy their work, they want to share that with others. And these conversations are you all useful for information gathering and building a network, which then may be useful not only when you're at the job hunting stage, but also once you're starting to work in the sector. And then I suppose for those who are already active in the sector, it's so important, I think, throughout any career to build and grow connections with others working in the industry. And that means, you know, not only other lawyers, if you are a lawyer yourself, but also other experts and professionals working in the space. And, you know, building that professional network can be done in any number of ways.
Speaker 2:Obviously, in person events. Again, I've mentioned webinars, you know, raising your profile just by asking insightful questions is a really easy way of building those connections. And then, you know, if you're feeling more bold, find opportunities to publish articles. We've got all these fantastic platforms on which we can share knowledge and thoughts. There are opportunities to get published in, you know, firm newsletters or perhaps even academic journals.
Speaker 2:So look at those opportunities. And then I've already mentioned, you know, we've got these social media platforms like LinkedIn, which is a business networking platform. Share your insights there and use it as a way to connect with others. And I think the speed of regulation and change, in this area mean there are regular opportunities to comment on developments. It doesn't need to be a long, piece of writing.
Speaker 2:It can just be highlighting a specific development in the area and used as a way to raise your profile as a thought leader in this field.
Speaker 1:I couldn't agree more. And I think the point about building building the network and I think sometimes people, certainly in the career coaching that I do with women in this field, I think people can sometimes shy away from the word networking because it comes with a bit of a slimy connotation of of, like, forcing conversations with people. But something that I recommend is is when we're talking about networking is actually to think about it as finding people you have something in common with and then speaking to them. And whilst that sounds incredibly obvious, it actually really shifts the narrative on it. So to your point about, you know, reaching out to people who you think have interesting work or or or that you want to share your insights with, that's fundamentally what you're doing is reaching out to people that you have a common interest with, which in this case is obviously the human rights law space, and being able to to connect and have those discussions.
Speaker 1:And I do find that we're quite lucky in a way, I think, that almost everybody who works in this space is so deeply passionate about what we do that it's rare you meet people who don't want to have a conversation or don't want to try and support other people to sort of join the good fight, so to speak. So I think that's really, really valuable.
Speaker 2:Yes. Absolutely. And I think very quickly, it's easy to find those with whom you can connect. And that then leads on to other connections. Absolutely.
Speaker 1:I would love to you know, anyone who would like to reach out to you to ask you more questions or to share their insights, where could people find you after this podcast episode?
Speaker 2:You can definitely find me on LinkedIn, and I'm very happy to connect, and answer any questions and just, keep the conversation going. And thanks so much to you, Bex, for having me on this episode.
Speaker 1:Thank you very much. It's been a pleasure. Thank you. Thank you for joining today's episode of Sustainable Futures. Next time, we'll be joined by doctor Rachel Widders, who will be talking to us about her international career in human rights due diligence and how to practically implement the guidance and regulations coming from The EU and other territories into your business globally.
Speaker 1:If you've enjoyed today's episode, please do leave us a rating, review, feedback, and share the episode with your network as the wider our reach, the more speakers and guests we can host on the podcast in future. Thank you and see you next time.