Transcript for Cutting Through podcast Season 2 Episode 4

Return to the podcast episode page to listen and find additional resources

Jonathan Holt   This is Cutting Through, the podcast for corporate digital communicators. Today on the podcast, we're asking, when should companies speak out? As recently as a few years ago, nearly every major company in the Western world seems to be using their digital channels and newsletters to tap positions on the issues of the day. the emails and social media posts affirming support for Black Lives Matter and Ukraine? 

Then came the culture war backlash, the return of a certain US president, and an almost eerie silence on the corporate front. Right now, though, there are some signs that corporate advocacy might be seeing a cautious revival. CEOs and CCOs are having to decide whether and how to speak out. So it's probably a good idea for all of us to be up to date on which direction the winds are blowing. 

In this episode, we'll talk through when to take a stand, when to hold back, and some concrete examples of companies speaking out, both recently and in past. Joining me yet again in the virtual podcasting studio are Georgia Barrett, Vice President, USA, at Bowen Craggs and Scott Payton, Chief Executive. 

Georgia and Scott, let's start with the big picture.  

Why do you think companies and their leaders are so much less likely to speak out on the issues of the day nowadays than they were a few years ago? And how did we get 

Scott Payton   Hi Jonathan, hi Georgia. I think how did we get here? Well, clearly there's been increasing polarisation around social and environmental issues, but I guess the polarisation itself has been bubbling away for some time, but I think what's changed is the fact that that polarisation has exploded into public and political discourse, as well as exploding into things like boycott campaigns against particular companies or products. But also in the US, there has been a growing risk of being publicly castigated by political leaders. So the stakes are higher, I guess. 

Georgia   Yeah, I would completely agree with that. I think what we're really seeing is a shift from, there were things that were widely sort of seen to be as universal, broadly supported topics like climate action, racial equity, public health. These are sort of 10 years ago, broadly supported, and they're now being framed as being partisan issues. So speaking up on any of these topics can really alienate large portions of your customer base. And it can lead to backlash in a very immediate and quite consequential way. There's quite an immediate cost of speaking about these issues that were once spoken about quite freely.

And it's a shift from, let's speak about everything to let's only speak about our most pertinent issues when it directly affects our employees, our customers and our core business. And I think it's really striking as we entered 2026 there was this trend on social media which was comparing 2026 to 2016. I think it's quite striking when you remember 2016 there was this enormous trend as soon as we this, it was nice to see. 

As we entered 2026, there was this trend on social media, which was comparing 2026 to 2016. And I think there's, it's quite striking when you remember 2016, there was this purpose trend. There was a statistic that purpose was one of the three most used words at the Cannes Lions Festival. 

Companies like Unilever put out a statement that all of their brands needed to have a purpose. And I remember there was a bit of a stir when Gillette, the razor company, tried to become a purpose-driven company. They put out an advert saying that razors make you be a better man or like they're trying to link those two things. And there was a bit of a backlash because they're like, why is this company that's selling razors, why can't a razor just be a razor? Why is it trying to teach me how to be a better person? All of that. And I think that was kind of a precursor to what we're seeing now, which is there's more backlash if you don't stay in your lane, so to speak, as a company.      

Scott   If you look at research in South Korea and Australia and the UK, as well as the United States, among younger people, essentially women are getting more liberal – sweeping generalisation – while men are getting more conservative. And there does seem to be a kind of an international in many countries, a deep-seated  strident division of opinion about core social and environmental and political issues. And I think that is kind of really kind of being reflected in an incredibly often acrimoniously polarised political environment. So I think it's not surprising that companies and many companies are really caught in the crossfire and it is very, very difficult to... it's never been possible to please all the people all the time but now you're lucky if you more than half the people all the time. 

Jonathan   Yeah, it seems to be harder than ever. The idea of a company or corporate leaders speaking out has more risk attached to it than ever.  But I wonder if there's a silver lining in that, which is that we don't have the rampant virtue signalling that we had a few years ago. When companies and leaders do speak out, they're taking a risk and it therefore means more, right?  

Georgia   Yes, I think that is the one silver lining as you say is that there is less virtue signalling because you're not going to speak about your environmental and social commitments in a world where there is quite a big backlash against ESG unless you truly are doing things that are beneficial. So it really sort of, leaves, it leaves only the people who are truly committed. 

Scott   Well, I was thinking about, right now it does mean something if someone from the corporate world does speak out. But at the same time, people in other areas of public life, like government, and even people from the business world like Elon Musk, they're speaking out a lot, very, very vocally. 

From a corporate communications perspective, the other challenge that think CEOs face, for example, or companies face is they are competing for attention, even if they do speak out, from incredibly loud strident, bold voices from elsewhere in public life, which is, I guess, is a challenge in itself. And compared to some of the things, some of the tweets that Elon Musk is bold enough to post a kind of corporate messages to use that word “milquetoast”. I've never used the word “milquetoast” until about two months ago. Now I use it about once a week. But everything is kind of tame compared to some of the voices out there.  

Georgia   And I would say that companies have not backed away from ESG, but they are now narrowing their focus and they're choosing ESG topics that directly matter to them and their customers. And I heard from the CEO of Allstate, the insurance company, at a conference. And he said that they have really narrowed in on their chosen ESG focus areas of extreme weather, data privacy, and this deliberate choice to only engage deeply on fewer issues is, I think, a side effect. It is quite beneficial because people are being clearer, they're being more direct, and they're probably having a greater impact if they are focusing in on a few key salient issues instead of casting a broad net around lots of different topics. 

Jonathan   There's something here in the midst of this whole conversation around when to speak out, which is around when can a company or corporate leader dare to speak truth to power, even if it's not what power wants to hear? 

I think we'll be coming back to that theme a few times over the rest of our conversation. So maybe as a way to kind of begin to dig into that a little bit, let's reflect back on a recent series of events in the US, which... to some eyes, appeared to be something of a tipping point in the end around corporate speech. And that is the events in Minnesota, particularly Minneapolis, where there was a surge in immigration and customs enforcement activity, which brought out protesters and ultimately led to two American citizens within a few days being shot and killed on the live stream and before the world. And all of the unrest had lots of people wondering where were the companies, where are companies who would in the past have spoken out in a case like this. And in fact, in Minneapolis, there was a very similar event in 2020 when George Floyd was murdered on live stream by police. 

And companies spoke out rampantly then as I alluded to at the very start. So in the end, quite a number of companies did speak out in a way. They signed a more than, or dozens of CEOs of Minnesota based companies of which there are quite a few and very well known names, signed a letter calling for stability essentially.  

The letter divided opinion, to say the least, but do you think it did what it needed to do? 

Georgia   Yes, so some context just to add to your summary is that, as you said, back in 2020, a lot of companies did make commitments in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. And they have since now that we're in 2026 have been criticized as being performative. And I read a statistic that said in 2018, less than half of the companies in the S&P500 had someone in the role of chief diversity officer.  

And then there was a huge surge in 2020 and the preceding years, no, the following years even. And it went up to 75% of these companies now had a chief diversity officer. And then since then it's gone completely the other way. And a lot of people have left because they weren't given enough support in the role or they've been fired. So I think that's quite a telling rise and fall of like the changing environment. 

So I think the letter from the CEOs kind of appears in that context. I think there is kind of a safety in numbers and we can't talk about this topic without acknowledging that there is a fear factor to speaking up. And I think we saw that quite clearly with the Jamie Dimon example. 

He was asked explicitly on the stage at Davos, do you think that there is an unwillingness of CEOs in America to say anything critical, and is there a climate of fear? 

And he actually dodged the question, which is in itself quite telling. So I think this idea of safety in numbers is probably why they chose to do a coalition. And I think this idea of a shared letter is a newly relevant way of communicating. 

But interested to hear what you think, Scott. 

Scott   Yeah, the first thing in my notes on this is that there is safety in numbers, funnily enough, so great minds and all that. But I do think that in a time of polarization and a time when powerful people and institutions are threatening people and companies with legal action, tempered language rather than strident language does to me make sense from a corporate communications perspective in this kind of context, even if it leaves some audiences feeling like the message is too tame. I genuinely think that saying something is better than saying nothing. Companies are, from a public affairs and corporate communications perspective, really stuck between a rock and a hard place.  And I thought the letter was,  it seemed to be, I mean, how do you judge its effectiveness? I get the impression that it did make a difference. I do. 

Jonathan   So as we've established, direct, clear, bold corporate speech is withering on the vine right now. But I did come across one example in relation to the Minneapolis events that really stopped me in my tracks because it is in fact all of those things, bold and direct. And it was Patagonia, the outdoor wear company which shared posts on its social media accounts calling for an end to state-sponsored violence, really naming the thing in a highly charged and very direct way.  Now, Patagonia is privately owned. The company is owned, in fact, by something called a Purpose Trust, and everything they do is wrapped in a kind of activism, you know, saving the environment, for example. So they're in a league of their own, but are there things we can learn from them? Is there something that's transferable from this to companies that don't have such a legal structure? 

Georgia   I mean, I think the simple answer to why Patagonia was kind of able to go out and say this is because they have been consistent and it's on brand and it's expected of them. And I think it's more of a cautionary tale that companies get into trouble, so to speak, when they make U-turns or when they they're not consistent or they say one thing and then go back on it. So I think the fact that Patagonia has just held firm on their stance, like on very similar topics over the years is kind of why they're able to do this.  

Scott   I agree. And I think I guess a lesson that other companies can learn from… When Patagonia announced in 2022 that it's planet Earth is now our only shareholder. So as Georgia says, that's it's not a standard, is not a conventional company. But I totally agree with Georgia that there is a lesson that it is taking a stand on something that is aligned with that company's values and that is relevant. So I guess there's a lesson, really, one of the kind of criteria for when should a company speak out is when does it do the company's core values really kind of call for the company to take a stand about something that is in conflict, in conflict with those, contradictory to those values. 

Jonathan   So as you alluded to earlier, Scott, in the political and cultural world, commentary and speech seems to be getting more biting, more satirical. And corporate speech by comparison does often feel a bit milquetoast or bland or expected. Can companies play at that game?  

Scott   It's interesting, it is interesting to look at political communications and I'm slightly obsessed by California Governor Gavin Newsom's official press feed on X. I thought it, and it's if you want to go, it's @Gov Press Office, @G-O-V Press Office. Do have a look. I genuinely thought it was a spoof the first time I saw it, this can't be the official press feed of the governor of California. But it's real and it is often parodying Trump and it's operating like a political comedy feed. So obviously it would be suicidal for companies to try to kind of directly emulate that kind of thing. But I do think that companies can be really strong and bold, more stronger and bolder in many areas, away from politically weaponised terms. They can be bold about talking about, again going back to Georgia's point about values and talking about things that are relevant to the business. They can be bold about tackling poverty, tackling pollution, combating corruption, lowering prices, creating jobs, improving safety, making people healthier, making people happier.  

So I think there's, and there's lots of research that we've talked about on this podcast before that shows that when companies talk about tackling specific problems, or taking a stand on tackling specific problems, then all sides of the political spectrum tend to support them. It's just there are a few specific topics and specific terms that have become wildly polarised. And it's here that companies, if they want to work for change, like those signatures of the  Minnesota companies that signed that letter, if they want to work for change, they need to think carefully about language. I'm not saying that it's a good thing that they need to think carefully about language.   

But it's the reality right now.  

Georgia    Yeah, I would add to that the growing importance of a policy and a positions section on your corporate website. And that could be a place to be a bit more bold. And again, in this context of AI search, it's now that one AC from less is more to more is more. And companies need to be more proactive and bold in setting out their stand. Because if they don't, then other sources will rush in and fill the gap. So you might as well say what you believe in. And there's lots of examples of companies making very clear, unambiguous statements such as Amazon. They talk very clearly about what they think about the federal minimum wage or their position on climate change. So I think companies, if you have a position on something, your website is a place where you should not be afraid to talk about it because there's actually a risk now of if you don't talk about it, like silence is now risky.  

Scott   Yeah, absolutely. And we should play Milquetoast Bingo. Let's guess how many times we use the word “milquetoast” in this episode of the podcast. I think there is a… Saying nothing.…  Many companies in the last 18 months have learnt the hard way that saying nothing is not a passive thing to do. Saying nothing has potentially high risks too. It's not not doing anything. It's a decision to do nothing, if that makes sense. And that's often a bad decision. And I think it's likely to be, going back to the political world, lots  of political leaders around the world took a rather  milquetoast approach to the language around their diplomacy with regards to the United States. Whereas Mark Carney, of Canada, took a much more strident approach and was received lots of plaudits for that.  

So I think things are shifting. Things are… I think what companies need to remember, what everybody needs to remember is that when we are living in a social and economic and political climate like we are now. It can feel like it's here forever. But history shows that it's always temporary, even if it's unclear when exactly it will shift. So companies need to be fluid and prepared to adapt. And I feel like communications, political discourse, corporate communications, even discourse in public popular culture is in a huge state of rapid flux right now. So I think companies need to be nimble and it's probably worth being, it's worth being prepared to be brave because I think the milquetoast approach, this mustn't be a drinking game. Otherwise we won't finish the podcast. I feel like we could be at a tipping point… on the verge of a tipping point. 

Jonathan   I wanted to bring up the Edelman Trust barometer. The latest one was released very recently. 

And it showed yet again that companies are the most trusted institution, more trusted than governments, than the media, than NGOs. The theme of this year's report, though, was about trust amid insularity. And by insularity, they're talking about the divisions that we've been talking about just now. And the research shows that most people want companies to step into the breach and do something to bridge the divide. It occurs to me as we're talking that there's a certain milquetoast quality to that. There has to be because if you are trying to bring people together, you're not going to do that by divisive speech, you know, by being belligerent or whatever. You’re probably not going to do that by being like satirically cutting either. But what does that look like? You know, how can companies do that? And what does it have to do with speaking out? 

Georgia   I think for me it shows that, I think we might've even said this on the podcast, is that businesses are almost like the grownups in the room. And the fact that businesses are becoming the most trusted of all of the different kind of forces in society, as per the latest Edelman Trust Barometer, places a greater responsibility on companies to kind of act like it and to act transparently and responsibly. So it could be like a kind of inspiring call to action on that front. 

Scott   Yeah, and I think if you look at the causes of people's insularity, what are the kind of roots of why are people increasingly looking inward, then I think it's important that companies do dig in to understand what the root cause of that is. 

For example, I think some root causes are the sense that many people feel like they're not being listened to. They, by government and the media, people feel like they're not being fairly treated. They're missing out on opportunities enjoyed by others. So if you kind of understand, if companies can understand those things like that, then companies can speak out on ways that it is actually creating opportunities, whether that's whether that it's about lowering prices, creating jobs, creating access to technology or whatever. And I think if companies start to get over this sort of chronic fear of talking about anything, which they are, they are doing, then talking about how the company is solving the, you know, the problems perceived and/or real that people feel, and that could be very constructive and potentially very powerful. 

Jonathan   Well, let's take a short break, and when we come back, we'll look at some examples of speaking out that communicators can lean on when deciding whether and how to speak up on an issue.     

[Interlude: A new era of corporate communications is here and the good news is that the digital team is in the forefront, like never before. The bad news is that, the digital is in the forefront, like never before. At Bowen Craggs, we only do corporate digital communications advice and we’ve got all eyes on the twists and turns and opportunity zones in this particular corner of communication, working with many of the worlds largest corporate brands all over the world. For our latest insights on everything from AI search to how corporate estates are evolving, visit our website, bowencraggs.com] 

Jonathan  So, given everything that we've said, when do you think today, right now, it is a good idea for companies to speak out? And when shouldn’t they? When should they hold back? 

Georgia   So three kind of broad guidelines. Speak out when it's relevant to your business and ideally when it's consistent with what you've done in the past and use your values as a North Star to guide you about, you know, for these questions of is it relevant? Which can include endangering your future talent pipeline and your future customers and your current customers and your current talent pipeline. So all of those are kind of considerations.  

Scott   Yeah, I totally agree. All I'd add is also consider is the issue directly relevant to the company's, your company's customers or employees or the communities in which it operates. So, I think relevance is really an important factor to consider. 

Jonathan   Well, let's talk for a moment about the human angle on all of this.  I think it's probably fair to say that there are a lot of communicators who work in companies and just general employees, but who work in companies where they wish the company would take a stronger stand and for all the reasons we've been talking about and more, perhaps that just isn't happening. We know in fact that, in Apple for example, publicly there has been a lot of pressure on their leadership to be more strident. What do you have to say to people listening to this podcast who may be in that position? What options do they have? What can they do to feel that their voice is being heard even if the company isn't currently taking it forward that way? 

Scott   Persuade, influence, show the senior leadership team examples of their peers speaking out and show them that the world didn't, the sky didn't fall in and potentially that it had positive benefits. So I do think it's, from a corporate communications department perspective, trying persuade and influence. And I do think that showing recent precedents of similar things, I think is, I mean, literally applying peer pressure, literally apply peer pressure on the senior leadership team, I think is probably the best approach. 

Jonathan   Well, let's see if we can surface a few examples that might help communicators to make that case.  Georgia, can you think of any recent or past examples of companies taking a stand that stand out for you? 

Georgia   So the one that is top of mind is what's happening with Anthropic at the moment. So there's a big battle happening between the company and between the US military about the use of Claude. And essentially the company’s CEO is saying, we don't want to kind of give you this technology because we don't fully trust what you're going to do with it. And it's very kind of public arguments. 

The US military are threatening to revoke all of the contracts. But it's, I think because it's such a key issue around safety and it's part of Anthropic's kind of mission statement and company values is safety. They are not at the moment willing to kind of give on this issue. So yeah, I'd say that's an example of a company being very guided by its values, even if kind of long-term interests and like money and profit and everything is kind of put at risk by it. 

Jonathan   I've been seeing commentary here and there about Anthropic largely around this issue, but to the effect that they are  considered to be the ethical AI company. So big trust signals there and big brownie points in terms of  the company reputation going forward at a moment where, ah you know, it's not just, they're not taking a stand because they think it would be a lovely thing to do. They're doing so because actual trust in their  company is on the line. It reminds me of some times in the not too distant past when  governments or police would try to get Apple to break into their encrypted  phones and Apple refused. You know, on the whole, I think that probably strengthened their reputation in consciousness unlike anything else we would have done. We can trust them. They're not going to betray us to the government, even when it's a moral grey area and there would be some argument for it to be done.  

Scott   I think that raises the point, both of those examples, the Apple example and the Anthropic example, it's I think from a communications planning perspective and certainly a crisis communications planning perspective, it's important for companies to decide, going back to Georgia's values point, what hills is it prepared to die on? And for Apple, for example, wasn't prepared, it was not going to let the FBI give the FBI back door into iPhones.  

So and I think that is going back to the all the points that Georgia made about values as a North Star to actually kind of and to trans in decent scenario planning and translate that into what does that mean when it comes to things that might happen in the future: events, new policies, new positions. And I know that Tim Cook has done that. That's not the only example of  Apple publicly being prepared to die on a hill, if that's the right metaphor. I don't think it is. 

Jonathan   Well, it's the one that we've got at the moment. And I think it certainly seems like one of the… a good answers to the question of when should and shouldn't companies take a stand. I mean, it's not the only answer, but it certainly would seem to be a strong indicator because that it suggests that it's a space that is crucial to them and actually means something. Scott, what have you come across that stuck out to you as an example of speaking on? 

Scott   Well, I think I'm going back to a decade, which was, as we discussed, it was a different time. It was a very, very, very different time. And my first example is back with Tim Cook. I think it was 2015. He tweeted, I quote, "Apple is open for everyone." We are deeply disappointed in Indiana's new law and calling on Arkansas governor to veto the similar…” and then he gave the code of the law. So it was at the time that was Tim Cook on behalf of Apple taking a stand  on a proposed law that would have allowed businesses to cite religious beliefs as a defence in refusing service to LGBTQ individuals. So a hill that Tim Cook was prepared to die on and he actually did have a, there was another backlash, the backlash widened. I think the chief executive of Salesforce got involved. Lots of pressure on Indiana and the law, I think the law was revised or clarified, I think.  

So that's my first example.

And two years later in 2017, so that's… We're in… that's Trump's first term. The chief executive of Goldman Sachs at the time, who was called Lloyd Blankfein, i. In June 2017, he posted his first ever tweet and it was about President Trump's decision to pull the United States out of the Paris  climate agreement. And his first ever tweet was, I quote, "Today's decision is a setback for the environment and for the US's leadership position in the world." He was very, very strident. And it's so interesting, same president, very, very, very different time when it comes to CEOs putting their heads above the parapet. 

Jonathan   Well, if we have or are about to reach a tipping point, which it seems there's some justification to think that, in which businesses might begin to feel a little more emboldened, then in that way that things come around again and that nothing stays the same., it doesn't hurt to have these examples to hand maybe as a blueprint for what a more strident type of speech can involve.  

You know, to come back to Patagonia, which we mentioned earlier,  some of their  social media activity, especially has been on a Gavin Newsom scale of not milquetoast, you know, before the furthest thing from was  one fairly recent set of posts which carried the line, "Global warming is over a baby!" - exclamation mark; but that was not meant to be taken on face value. It was actually just a sort of attention getter and then sort of gateway for them to tell you all the reasons why climate change is still a thing and they're still committed to doing something about it. Now, we've talked about how most companies right now, you know, can't necessarily go that far.  But Unilever kind of does.  They've had posts saying things like, “The time is now for UN Plastic Treaty” and others calling on… saying that “We urge businesses to take action on climate”. This has all been, I think, within this current US presidential term and the wave of squelching speech that has come over business and everyone else. So it is possible, isn't it, to take a clear stance even in these trying times.  

Scott   Absolutely, and I think it's going back…, Unilever is a great example of a company that's, you know, it's choosing its battles and it's decided it's taking a stand on a topic that is totally relevant to its business. Yeah, can be done. 

Jonathan   So to finish off, tell me about a time when you personally felt moved or inspired by a speech or public statement or someone taking a courageous stand. It could be recently or long ago. The main thing is that hopefully we can finish this episode on a high note.

Scott   My choice is a quote from last year from a hero of mine. It's Sir David Attenborough, who is a, I guess, internationally famous  chronicler of the natural world. And this year, he's going to be 100 years old. Last year, he was 99 years old and he released a film called Ocean. And I think David Attenborough is a master of communications and has been for decades. And the kind of core message in this film Ocean, which was highlighting the fact that the oceans are the most critical places on earth. And he said, “If we save the sea, we save our world.”

And it's just a wonderful bit of classic Attenborough conciseness and clarity. David Attenborough is also an example of someone who can talk about passionately about environmental issues without being accused, without being caught in any kind of any acrimonious political debate, broadly speaking.

So, love him.

Jonathan   And at 100 years old, he has seen it all. He's seen all of these things come and go numerous times, one would think. 

One of the speeches, public expressions that has been sort of a bedrock of my life was the commencement address that was given on the day that I graduated from my undergrad at University of North Carolina. And that was Seamus Heaney, the Northern Irish poet, who had only recently won the Nobel Prize for literature. So it was a pretty big deal, and I've been returning to that speech periodically for, and I hesitate to say this number, but 30 years. And it reads a little bit differently every time. But so I went back to it in preparation for this episode and I found  a passage where Seamus Heaney is quoting  the Russian poet and novelist Boris Pasternak who said that talent and the art of writing is quote “boldness in the face of the blank sheet”. And Heaney goes on to say, “the sheer exhilaration of those words is already enough to convince you of the truth that getting started is more than half the battle."

So, you know, I don't know. I feel like there's something there for all of us right now at a time when people are afraid to speak up. First of all, you know, what can any of us say or write right now that people might still be talking about 5, 20 or 30 years from now? The answer is probably not many things. We might only have one or two chances, but it's worth thinking about what those things are personally and professionally.

And I don't know, there's something about that boldness and the blank sheet, which feels to me really  profound at a time when most people kind of bypass that stage in communication and go to an AI tool or something and don't live with that… what used to be the scariest part of writing anything. And I think that's still maybe a part of being human. It's just a step away from all of that and be bold and see what emerges. So that's my little sermon. Georgia, what would you say?

Georgia   That was such a great example. I really, really enjoyed that.

David Attenborough’s 100th birthday. There was this thing on the radio where they got his birthday wrong. So every year they thought he was 100 before he was 100 or something. And then he was like very early. So then every year on his birthday, there's like this running joke about his age.

Scott   That's hilarious.

Georgia   So that was funny. But he is turning 100 on the 8th of May this year.

Scott   He is, yeah. Yeah, which is just incredibly... Have you seen, have you both seen the Wild London? He did a documentary about wildlife in London. I think he filmed it last year. So he was 99 and he, and he was, you know, actually he wasn't just fronting it. He was lying in gardens, looking… with foxes. He was, um, cuddling  peregrine, falcon chicks before they were released and it's just unbelievably joy-sparking and wonderful.

Jonathan   So, well, I really like the way that we have managed to bring this episode through from acrimony to inspiration and remind ourselves and hopefully some other people that speaking out doesn't have to be contentious. It can actually be life-affirming. This has been a wonderful chat, as always. Thank you both.

Georgia   Thank you very much.

Scott   Thank you.

Jonathan   So that's it for this episode of Cutting Through. As usual, you can find show notes as well as insights and our take on any number of the issues of the day and fodder for how you might speak out on your corporate channels on our website, bowencraggs.com. 

Return to the podcast episode page to listen and find additional resources