Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
A RopesTalk podcast series—a collaboration between Ropes & Gray's Insights Lab and Front-Line Anti-Bribery—focused on the data and behavioral sciences approach to risk management.
Nitish Upadhyaya: Welcome back to the Culture & Compliance Chronicles, the podcast that gives you new perspectives on legal, compliance, and regulatory challenges faced by organizations and individuals worldwide. The clue is in the title—culture is at the heart of everything. It’s the endlessly shifting patterns that govern our environment and behaviors. The magic is in amplifying certain patterns and dampening others. Let’s see if we can pique your curiosity, get you to challenge some of your perceptions, and give you space to think differently about some of your own challenges. I’m Nitish Upadhyaya, and I’m joined by Amanda Raad and Richard Bistrong. Hello, Amanda and Richard.
Richard Bistrong: Hello, Nitish and Amanda.
Amanda Raad: Hi, everybody—welcome back. Last time, we had Michael Miller with us, where we were talking about the power of meditation, which everyone, I think, now knows is near and dear to my heart. And so, we talked a lot about the value that meditation can bring to our personal and professional lives. Who do we have today, Nitish?
[1:05] Getting to Know Nadège
Nitish Upadhyaya: Today, we welcome Nadège Rochel. Nadège has a vast amount of experience building on embedding compliance programs across the health care industry. I’ve been lucky enough to hear her speak at several events. And what has always struck me is the very human approach that she takes, along with her creativity in designing compliance initiatives that bring smiles to faces. A passionate advocate for people-first leadership and integrity-driven culture, Nadège firmly believes that compliance is not a constraint but a catalyst for trust, for ethical business, and for lasting organizational resilience. I am so excited, Nadège, to have you with us and to explore some of the games, the tips, and tricks that you’ve learned over the last bit a while.
Nadège Rochel: Thank you so much. It’s really a privilege for me to be here with you, Amanda, and Richard. I’ve been listening to the show for a while and I think the conversations you bring are exactly the ones we need in our profession, so I’m really honored to be with you today.
Nitish Upadhyaya: Well, let’s help our audience get to know you a little bit better with our rapid icebreakers. Give us three things that we should know about you.
Nadège Rochel: When I was eight years old, I wanted to be a lawyer during the week and have my restaurant during the weekend because I loved to do the crêpe. It didn’t happen, so I can say today, I love hosting people at home, and it’s more about the planning, searching for the menu, the recipes online, thinking about what people really enjoy. So, that’s something that brings me a lot of joy. And actually, if you reflect, it’s kind of the same vessel I use in compliance—really genuinely thinking about the audience before you design anything for them. And I would say the last one is I lived in seven countries in Europe and I found it really fascinating the differences between each of them yet being so close geographically.
Nitish Upadhyaya: So, tell us: What’s one thing that you’re curious about?
Nadège Rochel: I would say wine. It’s not only the alcohol—it’s also the people. When you think about wine, it’s the master, it’s the producer choice, the history of the family, the terroir (the culture of the region), and I think it’s also about why someone chooses a bottle over another when you go to the wine shop. It’s something I’m really curious about. I apply it also when I do compliance—I’m trying to understand why people behave that way, and what their stories are.
Nitish Upadhyaya: That’s a fascinating thing to be curious about and interested in. I’m going to come back to that towards the end of the podcast. What’s the last thing that surprised you?
Nadège Rochel: I just came back from my trip to China. I visited a place near Guilin in the mountains, and they have a center there to study tea. And actually, I learned about yellow tea. I never heard about yellow tea, so that’s something I learned about. One thing that I am now applying is when you actually serve the tea—it applies for black, green, and yellow tea—you should always throw away the first water because the way they do the tea, they roast it and you take off the dust. But you should not do it for the white tea because it’s dry with air.
Amanda Raad: I’m so glad you taught us this. That’s amazing.
Nitish Upadhyaya: We’re already learning lots of interesting things, nothing to do with compliance and then yet everything to do with compliance. Knowing exactly how something should be brewed and how you should take it rather than the usual way of doing things.
[4:24] Using a Marketer’s Approach to Compliance
Richard Bistrong: Well, I think that’s a great lead-in for our first question. So, Nadège, you often share that compliance does not have to be boring. And here’s a plug—if you’re looking to put some humor into your program, we’ll share how to reach out to Nadège because her SCCE presentation in Berlin about a hypothetical compliance department that occupies an entire building in Luxembourg to analyze the gifting or receiving of a normal fountain pen is the presentation that all presentations want to be when they grow up. That was just fantastic, Nadège, and it is such a reflection of how we can put humor into anything. So, maybe you can tell us a little bit about how in real life we can put a marketer’s approach to compliance.
Nadège Rochel: Thanks, Richard. I have to say half of the credit goes to Christian Hunt as well, who was co-leading the session with me. I think, for me, it started with the fact that I’m convinced of the value of ethics and compliance for an organization and for its employees, and I feel that it’s part of my role to show it to them. And I never really understood why compliance people apologize for compliance. Have you ever seen a company apologizing for the product they just launched? So, for me, compliance is a product, and like any product, you have to make people want it and not just need it. So, to achieve that you need to think about what’s in it for them. And the shift really happened early in my career. I was training a room of sales reps. They were really loud. I was really young. They were really skeptical. They did not want to be there. And I stood there and I was mentioning proudly the article of the law, the paragraphs, the 13, and I could see that they were switching off in real time. And I was like, “What are you doing? It’s your fault. It’s not their fault.” And so, that’s where I started to create memorable experiences, highlighting, really, the value of compliance, designing for how people will actually learn, which is really different than the traditional compliance training—the one slide reading on the two decks.
One of the most memorable things I’ve ever done was a fake dawn raid. I just walked in unannounced. I played the role of the regulator. And back in the day, I was in the U.S., so it was the FBI. I had taped yellow tape on the back of a jacket, “FBI.” And the team started to fall apart because I came in and I was like, “This is a dawn raid.” I had a fake ID. They didn’t know how to react. They refused to hand over information. They didn’t list the document I was taking over. They didn’t list the question. They were mortified. Six years later, people still talked about it, and it’s not because of what I had said or taught them, it’s how I’ve made them feel. They realized they were not ready in that moment. And I think it’s really reassuming the marketer approach: You don’t sell the feature—you really sell the feeling.
Nitish Upadhyaya: I think that’s it: selling the feeling. People don’t remember necessarily what you said, but they do remember how you made them feel. That’s a Maya Angelou quote, I think. Amanda and I just came off a crisis management exercise that we ran for an executive management team. And one of the teams at the end described the feeling as being painful of realizing that their processes and procedures were not up to scratch. For the whole group to go through that shared trauma, luckily not in a live situation but in a fake situation, over the course of a day to really feel how troubling it was is what then results in behavior change. So, I’d be really interested in your viewpoint around how you go from creating the feeling to then influencing behavior and outcomes on the compliance side.
[8:26] From Feelings to Influence
Nadège Rochel: The behavior at first, I noticed it was the aspect of I had this fun training. People had fun. They realized that they were not ready. They realized they needed me. But they had a great connection, so then they would come back to me and ask questions. I was approachable and I could see that there was a change in behavior because they would come to me rather than avoid me. Usually, compliance is seen as the partner of “no.” I was not able to measure that yet—I was able to measure with my gut feeling. I could see that people were inviting me for meetings. And I have a great story as well. At Christmas, when I was at Hollister, I was invited everywhere for the Christmas parties. I was doing the tour of Christmas parties and I was saying to the stakeholders of the business, “You have to give me space in the agenda because it’s going to be hard for me to justify that I’m just flying over to have dinner with you.” And I was able to get those invites in the agenda because I had the relationship—they saw me being part of the team and they wanted to have me there. And that’s how I realized that I was able to change the behavior because people were able to welcome me, and they could see the added value I could bring to the organization.
Amanda Raad: I love that. And it really stems back to where you started, that very first training that you talked about, where I think it’s really compelling and impressive that you were able to immediately put yourself in the other person’s shoe. Instead of being frustrated about the lack of attention and digging in, really trying to understand for the person receiving the training how to work with them. And you just talked about the overall relationship, bringing all of this together. Practically speaking, how do you build those relationships? Because it is so important to have relationships with the business. We spend so much time talking about compliance and ethics having a seat at the table. But then, practically speaking, how do you actually get that seat at the table? And how do you get it so that they want to put you on the agenda when you’re visiting for the holiday parties?
Nadège Rochel: I would say that first, when you think about compliance, when you tell someone that they cannot do something, their first instinct is really to push back. It’s not because they disagree, it’s just they feel that they lost their freedom. And that’s what we call reactance. Reactance is a psychological reaction when someone or something is reducing your freedom. So, when you actually think about your SOP and you’re stating the paragraph and the paragraph is saying that it’s prohibiting you to do X, Y, and Z, what kind of a mission do you create? So, I think it’s the first thing that I realized. And instead, if I’m able to say acceptance or being accepted, how do I position myself in a way that I’m actually a solution provider and not someone that’s blocking everything. For me to really move away, I would say there are two aspects I would look at as really the empathy. So, as you mentioned, stepping into the shoes of your audience and understanding their pressure—because at the end of the day, they have the pressure to execute; they have the pressure of the numbers—speaking their language and not the law. And this is what we call the curse of knowledge. I’m an expert—I use this terminology that no one understands, so really cutting it down to what an eight-year-old person would approach, I think they really like that.
What I try to do is really remove the friction when we design something so it’s easier to do the right thing for them. At the end of the day, people want to do the right thing—it’s just that sometimes, the way we design our processes, it actually makes it harder and you create this reactance because they have to go and navigate through that. What I try to do as well is really acknowledging their position, trying to understand, and trying to explain to them what’s the benefit for them, for the organization, and also for our stakeholders. I’ve been working 15 years of my life in life science. Patients are at the core of everything we do, so I think somehow, it’s maybe easier for us. But that’s what we do for patients. Then, you come to create your ambassador, as I like to call them, your “compliance addict” where really people are your ally.
I have an example where we had a challenging situation with the GDPR—the European privacy regulation. When it came into force, we needed to have the consent to be complying with the law for the direct marketing for a health care professional. And I worked with the team—I was like, “Okay, I understand, it’s struggling for you, but we have to comply with the law.” And what we’ve done is actually we created a small film with our different sales reps to explain to our health care professionals about what the GDPR is and why now we have those new forms that they need to sign. And it was not delivered by me—it was delivered by our sales rep, and it was good for the HCPs because they could see those spaces. And the result is we got 70% increase in their consent. So, I think it’s also a great example of co-creating something with a business, with your stakeholders, really helps you to be invited in and have your seat at the table.
[13:37] Tips for Co-Designing Initiatives
Richard Bistrong: So, it’s interesting—I wrote down before you were talking about the curse of knowledge, and to take yourself back before you knew about something and what that felt like, and to put yourself in the position of the people that you’re sharing this with, and to understand that that’s where they’re coming from. But, Nadège, in terms of co-creation, are there any tips that you could help us with? Because that seems to be an enormous enterprise. Where would an ethics and compliance leader start to try to co-create any initiative with their commercial peers?
Nadège Rochel: Co-creation is a powerful tool to be invited in. Your compliance tools, your compliance processes, your intervention, if we design with them, it’s really definitely more effective than if we impose them. And at the end of the day, who has to follow your processes? Those people. So, you better ask them what they think about that, because at the end of the day, they are going to be the ones using it. I would say my approach is I use a mix. So, I use stakeholders with a lot of reactance mixed with the compliance ambassador or the compliance addicts, as I like to call them.
I can give you an example. One of the companies I work with, my team used to get a lot of questions about where to find compliance documentation, and so, we’d focus on directing people on documentation rather than providing advice. And when we looked at it, we decided that we should create a small group of people selected in the organization, and I had those mixed. So, the negative people would have the opportunity to vent about the fact that it’s a mess, they cannot find the procedure, it’s painful, they have to go all through the process. And then, you have the addicts where they were able to suggest ideas because acceptance actually brings a lot of innovation, and they were also able to convince their peers because they were allies. And the outcome was way better than myself or my team could’ve ever thought of. We created this intranet with user profiles, and based on the role and area of interest, the tool would be able to suggest the document for them, which is really nice. And then, they would have the possibility to like the document, to add comments. It had a lot of benefits for them, but also for us when you think about it. The likes and the comments version would actually force people to always go to our intranet to reach out for the documentation, so the benefit is they would always have the updated document available. Usually, they save it on their computer and then for five years they use the same documentation when it has been changed already so many times. And we were able to collect really insightful data: number of accesses, the documentation. The thing is the people importing the project were so excited to share about it on the intranet. They made videos and they were basically selling it to the whole organization. We didn’t have to do anything in terms of communication. So, I think it’s a really good way to also educate your stakeholders, to really understand where they are at and where you can meet them in the middle. When they see that you’re trying to understand their perspective and you’re open to their feedback, and they see that you’re trying to do the process as pain-free as possible, at the end of the day, they are really collaborating.
Richard Bistrong: Just to echo that, there’s data that supports that for the younger work force, Gen Z, the more you’re co-creating with them the more they’re buying into your program. If they think that policies, rules, and procedures are being designed by people as old as I am, in windowless offices, they’re more likely to circumvent those policies because they don’t understand why they exist to begin with. So, what a great best practice. Thank you for sharing that.
Amanda Raad: We also just are bad at creating things that we don’t do together. If you aren’t living every day with the actual business and the problem or challenge at hand, you don’t know how to create a solution that works, as much as we may think we would like to know. So, I think it’s really out of pure necessity to find a solution that actually works for everyone, including for the compliance addict.
Nadège Rochel: I think it’s really moving from your paper program to your effective program because we would design something that works on paper, but then, in the real life, it wouldn’t work because people would not follow the process.
[18:08] Measuring Effectiveness
Amanda Raad: Yes, I also find people unfortunately get stuck when they’ve spent a long time designing something and trying to get the paper exactly the way they want it. There’s this real fear of trying something different, or changing it, or thinking about a new innovative way of looking at the problem—and that’s a nice transition into the next question. You touched on this briefly a little bit earlier, but how do you think about trying to measure the effectiveness of what you’re doing in some of the initiatives that you’re working on, and how do you avoid getting stuck? “This is the way we’ve always done it, and even in the face of evidence that it’s not working, we are digging our heels in.”
Nadège Rochel: I think this is the million-dollar question: effectiveness? I know a lot of authorities are expecting your program to be effective, but they don’t give you any hint on that. So, for me, this aha moment is when I studied behavioral science applied for public policy. I learned about two fascinating stories, and they transformed the way I thought about effectiveness. So, you have the first one—which I think I had shared with Nitish when we met in Berlin—the Australian in-hospital infection rate. They had a high infection rate in the hospital because doctors would not wash their hands. And when you reflect about compliance people and the toolbox we have, the first reaction would be, “Okay, let’s put a training into place.” We explain to people how important it is to wash your hands. When you think about HCPs, health care professionals, train 12 years to save lives, obviously they know that they have to wash their hands, so that was definitely not the root cause of the issue. The next level could be we say, “Let’s have this nice video of the CEO of the hospital—tone from the top. He’s reinforcing how important it is to wash your hands.” But when you think about it, it was socially accepted in the hospital to wash your hands, right? When they looked at it, actually the issue was they didn’t have any washing stations to be able to perform the activity. So, when you think about effectiveness, we could’ve launched the best training ever, the nice video of the CEO, but it would not have had any effect because people would not still be able to perform the behavior that is expected.
They had another example in Australia as well, which actually is used in the U.S. and in China, I heard, is those teen dolls—fake babies that are given to teens to avoid teen pregnancy. And so, they would have a fake baby, and they would have to handle all the challenges of having a fake baby. And the expectation is that people would get tired because they’re young, and they would rather play with their friends and not have a baby. They’ve ran this study for 20 years and I was super surprised when I read the result, because you would expect the outcome to be different. But when they actually measured that, they realized that teens who had been exposed to teen dolls had more babies when they were teens than others. The intent was really good—maybe you think the intervention would make sense—but actually, the result is completely different. So, when we think about our program, because we don’t measure effectiveness yet, we may try to put interventions into play that are actually not working. I would not have a secret recipe on how to do it. The way I have done it is trying to identify what kind of behavior I’m expecting to see, and then, how can I measure it, leveraging some internal tools. It’s really shifting from, “Did people complete their training?” to “Did the behavior change?” And it’s definitely a completely different question.
I can share with you an example where we went from 32 findings, with 16 critical, to zero findings after FCPA audits in 18 months. We had an internal assessment on P4 service. So, for people who are not in the life science industry, P4 service is a hot topic for people in the life science industry because there is usually a bit of influence, potentially bribes. And we had those findings. So, what we did is look at, “Okay, what are the critical findings?” We looked at a remediation campaign, and my objective was to include the quality of the submission of those P4 services. We did a communication campaign really nicely—we had some jokes, fun languages, some quizzes to create some engagements. And then, we had a compliance week that we focused on the P4 service with a game—one that worked a lot in the past, a Monopoly type where you win market share by answering compliance questions because compliance is your competitive advantage. We had “be a compliance officer for an hour” where we actually forced people to be in our shoes and review documentation. And actually, funny enough, they always find more errors than I would find myself.
I could see the improvement of the quality after a couple of months. So, we had a 40% reduction in failure in the quality, and then we had an increase of 1.2 documents. Then, we changed the SOP with a group of stakeholders, so the co-creation again. We simplified the process and also how we communicate. So, one page of key principles, and then we introduced color-coding per function, so you don’t have to read everything—you just need to spot your color and you know exactly what you need to do. So, it’s really a simple way for people to act. When we launched the training, 93% of the people completed it within 10 days while they had 30 days to do so. So, you see, it’s not compliance fatigue—it’s really people were interested to see what’s going on and what are the new things. Fast forward 18 months later, we had an FCP audit: zero findings on people surveys. So, I think this is behavioral change and this is effectiveness. And I think it’s also a great way for us to demonstrate the value we bring to the organization—strong KPI to really show that also ethics and compliance bring value and is not only a cost center.
Amanda Raad: Those are such good examples. There is no one way, as you say, but to be able to make sure that you’re actually asking the question, like, “What am I actually looking to see? And am I seeing that?” Sounds really simple, but I think with the list of things we’re trying to do and achieve, sometimes people get a bit lost in the metrics or are trying to perfect how to look at it. So, just being really purposeful about that is a really helpful perspective.
Nitish Upadhyaya: I think, Amanda, you pick up on a really interesting point here, and I can bring my wine example into this, as promised. As compliance officers in the legal space or wherever you are, you are susceptible to very human biases about the information that you are receiving. Nadège, you mentioned the voices of the compliance champions—that’s great, but you need to get the naysayers as well. I don’t know very much about wine, but I remember hearing a story that has stuck with me around the acidity of wine, and how we tell whether or not wine is acidic or not. Now, of course, you could read the label. You could get a look at the color. You could have all of these things that are going to influence your perspective as to whether or not wine is acidic. But as I understand it, when wine is acidic it makes your mouth water, and so, you end up with saliva. You forget about your eyes. You forget about what you’re seeing. And actually, you just almost listen to your mouth, the physical indicator of saliva, and if you end up with high acidity, you end up having more, and vice versa. And so, it always reminds me that there are other indicators apart from what you see in front of you that are fundamentally important to understanding the outcomes that you are trying to achieve. To that end, what have you done to help influence decision-making for stakeholders? I often find that you have the processes, you have the procedures, you have all these other things—you actually engage people as well, which is wonderful from the examples—but what about shaping people’s decision-making in the moment? I find that is one of the key roles for a compliance officer but maybe isn’t acknowledged as much.
[26:11] Shaping Decision Making in the Moment
Nadège Rochel: Influencing decision-making they need to make the decision, so I’m not the one making a decision for them. So, I need to equip them with the right skills to be able to make the best decision. Usually, I take this analogy when I teach about training, especially nowadays with a lot of changes. If you have kids at home, and you have a certain brand of candy and you say to them, “You cannot eat those candies.” And they are red and the label is red—it’s a brand that is red. If you don’t explain anything about the risk and why it’s not okay, they are not able to see if they go to a friend’s place and they have a different brand which is a different color, they are not able to see the risk, and therefore, they don’t make the right decision. So, you have to explain about the sugar—you have to explain about why it’s difficult for going to sleep and things like that. So, really explaining about the risk and the why is really important, especially now, because we are really in a changing world. Maybe now, the candy is not only the color of the label, it could be a different shape. Let’s say it’s a lollipop. So, if you teach people about the type of candy and then suddenly you have a lollipop, they would not even see the risk—they would not even associate it with that because the shape is completely different. Marketing or companies want the kids to be more healthy. I know that now they are doing candies that are made not of sugar, but fruit juice, and so, there is less sugar and, therefore, maybe there is a lower risk. But if we have not educated our business stakeholders about what really are the risks and equip them with the right ways to identify difficult dilemmas and treat them, they might just say no to the fruit juice candy while maybe it was okay to take two. Not the whole pack, but two, right? And so, I think, for me, influencing decisions is really equipping people with the right mindset and the right understanding to help them to make the right decision at the right time.
[28:07] Building a Compliance Community
Richard Bistrong: Nadège, I want to change lanes for a minute. Not too long ago, you were the leader and started an initiative in Italy, in Milan, to bring together a compliance community. And I was honored to have participated in one of those early sessions. I know Amanda was also a part of that initiative. I remember before we started, you shared that there was a lot of compliance discussion in Italy around regulations but not so much around ethics. So, bringing in this discussion, and also for people who also might think about how to start a compliance community where they are, can you tell us a little bit about the thinking behind that initiative?
Nadège Rochel: I’m a big believer of the power of our community, because the compliance function can feel alone, but we are not. So, I think it’s one of the reasons why I’m trying to help the community in compliance. In Italy, indeed, the anti-corruption regulation is really strong—it’s called Decree No. 231 regulation. And when I arrived in Italy, they were only focusing on this. I think the whole discussion we had today, you can see that I’m a strong believer of the human skills that are important for compliance people. So, technical is okay, but half of the other part of the job is actually how to interact with people, or how do you create those relationships. And I felt that we had a lack of that in Italy. They were speaking about articles and things, and I felt that they were making it really complex and not human. And so, I tried to bring a bit of human part to that and bring this piece of ethics, which is around those dilemmas as anti-corruption can feel black and white. But as we evolve as a function and we have different types of mandates—some people have ESG, data privacy—I think ethics is something that needs to be brought to the table and needs to be brought to the board. So, one of those sessions we had, and actually Amanda participated in this one, is, how do you bring ethics to the board and how do you communicate to board members to make sure you get the right support.
[30:23] Key Takeaways
Nitish Upadhyaya: Amazing. We have been through so many topics, but we will wrap up for this episode, at least. We’ll start with Richard. What are your key takeaways from our conversation today?
Richard Bistrong: Well, in reverse order of importance, as we record today, I’m sitting from a short drive from Chianti country, so, I guess I’m putting a plug in for family organic vineyards, as Nadège was sharing. But more importantly, so much of our discussions come back to emotions, the feelings, and I think my biggest takeaway is we can sometimes get so caught up in implementing things that we forget about inspiring. We forget about influencing. And Nadège, you bring such great experience and perspective to how important that is, especially, in this current field and world of regulations that are uneven and at best confusing. So, I think it’s even more important now. Thank you for sharing that.
Nitish Upadhyaya: And Amanda, what about your side?
Amanda Raad: Well, it’s related. I think you helped remind all of us why we do what we do. Why do we get up every morning and spend all the time doing this, and what purpose are we trying to bring to what we do? And you do have a way, and it comes across, when I walk in a room with you, I feel like all the people feel seen and very important. They have your full attention, and that is a gift. We spend a lot of time talking about how to be a good listener and how to create an environment where you can have effective communication and all of that, and you really exude that. And so, I think you’re such a great model of that, and it came across loud and clear today. So, thank you for sharing it. What about you, Nitish?
Nitish Upadhyaya: I think building on that, Nadège, you’re a great role model, but also, you’ve equipped us today with so many skills and tips for all compliance officers, whether they are the most junior or they’ve been doing this for a very, very long time in terms of helping make sure that they can be business partners and they can help achieve business objectives through joyful compliance. It’s interesting. It’s exciting. It’s fun. People want to interact. And picking apart the feelings piece that Richard talked about, the zip and the energy that you bring to it, actually, it’s doable—everyone can bring this into it. And for their roles, for their satisfaction, for the meaning that they have in what they’re trying to do, this could be a really new way of adding some energy and momentum to their own roles. Thank you for that. As we draw to a close, what advice do you have for our listeners?
Nadège Rochel: I would say listen, ask questions, be approachable, build a relationship before you need it, and maybe ask yourself: In your organization right now, are you invited or are you avoided? And maybe pick one person that you don’t fully understand and ask for a simple coffee break and just listen. You will learn so much about themselves, about their perspective, and they will remember how you make them feel.
Nitish Upadhyaya: What a way to capture the whole conversation that we’ve had today. Thank you so much. Final piece from us is where can listeners find out more about your work?
Nadège Rochel: So, you can follow me on LinkedIn. I am happy to connect and further discuss if you’re interested. If you can read Italian, actually, I just published a book called Compliance Integrata from the Zanichelli edition where I speak about this and you have a lot of additional examples. And then, we will be launching also in Italy a master on human skills for compliance in November. So, if you’re interested as well, it’s going to be a mix of Italian and English.
Nitish Upadhyaya: Amazing. Lots of places for people to get involved and learn a bit more about how you do things and how they might do things as well. Thank you again for all of your ideas and thoughts and being an inspiring guest. Thank you all for tuning in to the latest episode in our Culture & Compliance Chronicles series. For more information about our series and any of the ideas discussed today, take a look at the links in our show notes. You can also subscribe to the series wherever you regularly listen to podcasts, including on Apple and Spotify. Amanda, Richard, and I will be back very soon for our next chapter. If you have topics you’d like us to cover or novel perspectives you want everyone else to hear about, get in touch. Thanks again for listening. Have a wonderful day and stay curious.