What does it mean to be a good steward of water—and how can stewardship help create a more resilient, purpose-driven water sector?
In this episode of Never Mind the Pain Points, Rutger Veltman is joined by Andy Brown, former Group Chief Sustainability Officer at Anglian Water, and Dr James Jenkins, Head of Sustainability and Natural Assets at Ofwat. Together, they explore how organisations across the water system can make better decisions for customers, communities, the environment and future generations.
The conversation examines the relationship between purpose, governance and stewardship, including how acting with care, integrity and foresight can help organisations navigate complex environmental, social and economic trade-offs. The guests also discuss the importance of transparency, trust and storytelling in supporting water-sector reform, as well as why current regulatory and climate pressures represent a generational opportunity to build a more adaptive and purpose-driven system.
Listen below or read on for an edited transcript.
Rutger Veltman: We are here today to talk about, water and stewardship. I'll start with introducing myself and then introduce my brilliant guests today. So, my name is Rutger Veltman. I lead some of our systems innovation work at Clarasys, working specifically in the water sector, but also in food and healthcare.
And I'm joined here today by Andy Brown, who's an independent consultant, previously was the group chief sustainability officer at Anglian Water for a very long time, and he now chairs as well the BSI group on the new ISO standards on purpose-driven business.
And I'm also joined here with Dr. James Jenkins, who is the head of sustainability and natural assets at, at Ofwat. So, thank you very much both for joining us here today.
As I said, the topic of today is water and stewardship, so what stewardship means in the context of water. And before we start with that specific topic, I just want to ask a more personal question of how you both got into the water sector.
What's that journey been for you? Maybe starting with you, James.
James Jenkins: Oh, oh, wow. This is gonna take me right back. I'm just trying to think. I wasn't consciously thinking about it, but I think I've... When I l- look back, I grew up in South Wales, in Bridgend, which is not far from the coast. Not far from the River Ogmore.
I used to play in it as a kid, so water's always been around and in my life, and I was always interested in geography. So studied geography. I ended up doing a project on rivers. I enjoyed that. Then went off to study geography at university, and somehow I always ended up on projects linked to water. River water quality has kind of been there, something I've gravitated to. Maybe because I, I'm in my element, and I think it's Sir Ken Robinson talks about being in your element. So if you're in your element, you enjoy it, you love it, so I've gravitated to that. And I've kind of stayed in it ever since, so academia, looking at water, how it's managed, and teaching others about that, and then moving into regulation to try and make a difference without sounding too cheesy about it.
But, you know, that's what I've gravitated to, and water's been that something I'm always... Sometimes you find your space, you're happy in it, and ultimately I'm happy in it. I must be, 'cause I enjoy doing it, I think, if that makes sense.
Rutger Veltman: Absolutely. Yeah, no, thank you. What about you, Andy?
Andy Brown: Yeah. So it's just, yeah, going back a long way.
So I am, an ecologist, I guess, originally. That's, that's, My passion has been biodiversity. My mum was a botanist, my dad was a zoologist. Grew up watching David Attenborough, who's always been my hero, and so when I came out of university, just as you say, James, knowing that that was the space I wanted to work in.
So I worked within kind of, I guess, more, more the industrial side of ecology with the MOD originally. We've got some amazing wild spaces, many of which, have, have a water focus. And then got pulled across into the water industry, working for Anglian Water, what was always described as the, the kind of best job in the company, where I was effectively doing the, the kind of proactive work on improving biodiversity across their estate.
But then I got more interested in broader environmental issues. I got into climate change, and particularly climate adaptation, and water sits at the very heart of that. I got into broader sustainability And I guess the human interaction and the economic interaction with water. And, yeah, then got into kind of some of the more boring elements, I guess, that... well, people would say they're boring. I don't think they are, because they sit at the very heart of getting systems to work effectively. So I got into understanding about how you build better decision-making. What, what does it actually mean to be a purpose-driven organization? So yeah, so that's what I do now. I hopped out of water, although kind of closely linked to it in, in much of the work I do now. But I'm basically here to support organizations who really want to understand how they fit into the natural world and the social world, and to, you know, make it better as a result of what they do, rather than worse.
Rutger Veltman: Brilliant. That sounds like an amazing journey. And we're here to talk about that stewardship, and I'll introduce that a little bit, and then we can unpack that. I think for us at Clarasys, we sort of looked at the world of, of purpose-driven business and organizations, and we realized working with a whole range of different clients that one of the big constraining factors often in organizations, whether they're for-profit, not-for-profit, is the fundamental governance, the structures of how they're set up.
And, you know, that's why we did a bunch of research interviewing various leaders, in- including yourself, Andy, of course, looking at how governance can be changed in order to embed purpose into the organization. And when we met you, James, and talked a little bit about what that means in the water sector and what that means in the context of stewardship, I saw a great overlap and sort of a, a synergy in that respect.
So I want to talk a little bit about what stewardship means in the context of water specifically, maybe starting with you, James, and then we can take it from there.
James Jenkins: For sure. I mean, thinking... If you reflect on purpose, I think all organizations need to be clear why they're there and what they've been set up to achieve and who they're working for.
But then on top of that, then you think about: How can we take that forward? How can we act on it? And stewardship is one way of doing that. Being clear on how you want to enact that purpose and take it forward. And then stewardship really begins to help you think about, in any sector, but for me in water, it gets you to think about who it is that you're acting for. So you can act with care, integrity, and foresight, is one way to break it down. So if we think about how we're going to act with care, we think about: Who are we acting for care for? So at Ofwat it would be customers, communities, and the environment, kind of three groups that you want to make sure that you are delivering outcomes that meet their needs. Be sure that they're protected, looked after, simply put.
Then you look at how do you want to do that? You need to do it with integrity. So you need to be clear on how you're reaching the decisions that you're reaching. Inevitably, in a system like water, there are gonna be trade-offs. In any aspect of society, there are trade-offs. You can't fund everything. You can't do everything that you want to be-- because of funding, for timing, skills, other resources. So you have to be clear on how you've reached the decisions that you've reached. And stewardship really does get you to think about being clear on how you've reached those trade-offs, being transparent about that. You have to be upfront. You have to lean into that. It's uncomfortable at times. There is a tendency by all actors to resist being open for all sorts of reasons. It could be legally, you have to be careful what you share sometimes, but you have to think about how you manage that. If you're open with people, you build that trust and that engagement, and you bring people with you, and then you get buy-in, and you have a, a better system 'cause people can understand why you're doing something, why we're here. They realize you've got a trade-off to make on funding or resources. So that's the kind of integrity aspect.
And then you sit down and think about, "Well, who do we want to do this for?" It's not just the question of people in the here and now. It's for future generations, so it's that foresight aspect about how do you act for the long term.
And then in doing so, you need to think about, well, are we taking the right decisions now? So if we're looking at funding a solution, well, that, that may deliver improvements, say, in water quality. So you could traditionally go and build a gray water tank, concrete, pour lots of concrete and treat it. That's great for the short term. That'll give you good guaranteed outputs in the main. But is that right for future generations when you think of the carbon inputs, the expense? Could we not deliver in an approach to wetlands, for example? That would be longer term, less carbon intensive, less resource intensive. That would be better for future generations.
But it also gets you to think about the costs. When should we think about we should maybe pay a bit more now 'cause it'll be cheaper in the long run? But you need to be thinking about future generations. And traditionally In all aspects of life, not just the water sector, we can be quite bad about doing that, particularly when you're driven by five-year funding cycles. And that's understandable, but you've got to try and find a way to do that. So stewardship encourages you.
In all of this, if you have an approach and you get buy-in to it, you're clear on your purpose, you're clear how you're gonna do it, you have legitimacy to have those conversations in work. You can get a seat at the table. You can start to, you know, debate and discuss these issues.
Without being clear on your purpose or how you're going to do it, it's very difficult to have that challenge in an organization 'cause it will continue to do what it's always done. But if you're there and you say, "Well, we need to have these people around the table because we're signing up to stewardship here. We want to be clear on our purpose," it changes the legitimacy, that decision-making. So that's me stewardship in a nutshell to some extent.
Rutger Veltman: And I heard you say stewardship is about foresight, integrity, and care. Correct. So if you look at stewardship, I suppose, do you see it almost as a way of making decisions, or is it also an outcome in itself?
James Jenkins: I think it's a bit of both. I think to some extent, I think it is a clear way to about how you can make decisions, how you go about it, and it... to remind people of what they need to consider. So you have to unpack it and make it work in an organization. You have to find ways in which you, how do we change the decision-making process?
So if something goes to board, there needs to be some kind of checklist, so they show that you're bringing this proposal to us to fund the reduction of net zero, or to achieve net zero, for example, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Who are we doing that for? Who are we caring for in doing that? So explain that, demonstrate that.
When you're thinking about how we reach the decisions on that, who have we engaged with? Where's the evidence to challenge the decision-making? And then foresight, okay, this is great, this is gonna meet our commitments in the next five years, but what will it do for future generations? Have you considered this? Have you thought that through?
How stewardship can improve governance and accountability
James Jenkins: So you can begin to unpack it in a... That's in a general sense to drive that. So it's a way of taking decisions, but it'll shape your outcomes as well ultimately. So it's a bit of both.
Rutger Veltman: What's your reflection on that, Andy?
Andy Brown: Yeah, absolutely resonates completely with me. And, you know, I think the thing that we've potentially been lacking, which stewardship and this idea of stewardship delivering purpose or stewardship being part of how we consider and talk about purpose, cuts across the different actors, the different players in the sector.
And, yes, I've worked for the water company for a long time. I worked for nearly three decades, so I have experience of what it's like to be within a water company. I work closely with the regulators, both Ofwat, but also with the Environment Agency, with Natural England. I work closely with Defra on some things, and they're all good organisations, all filled with predominantly really good people trying to do what's best based on what purpose that organisation has been given. Now, sometimes when you then step back and have a look at it, the purposes or the roles that organisations have been given needs to evolve over time, to change with the externalities that we are now facing, or just simply to mature and understand that there are better, more effective ways of delivering long-term stewardship thinking, that will benefit the economy, that will benefit customers and, and communities, and that will benefit the environment.
This idea of stewardship and the way that James has just been explaining it is exactly that. If every actor within the system starts to think along the lines of, "What's my role in delivering outcomes?" based on that kind of thinking and decision-making, then the system doesn't lose energy antagonistically, combatively, kind of arguing with each other, but actually says, "Okay, yeah, I understand what it is we're trying to do, why we're trying to do it, who we're trying to do it for, how we're going to achieve it in the most effective way."
Then, I'm not saying, you know, the world is a perfect place, but you start to have a much more effective delivery through that system. So yeah, i- it's music to my ears, and absolutely aligns with this idea around the kind of evolving world of developing governance based on purpose. Everything that James has said absolutely aligns with, how do you think and make decisions within an organization so that it will benefit the environment, benefit communities and customers in the long term, but create a sustainable ecosystem for that organization to function within?
Rutger Veltman: Absolutely. And I appreciate sometimes the concepts of governance, purpose, stewardship can be difficult to grasp and to really feel and see what they mean in practice. I wonder if we root it a little bit into some of the challenges that the water system is facing today. What do you see happening now? We've, of course, had the, Cunliffe Review and the call for a big reset in water. We've got a number of systemic challenges that water has to deal with, both from an environmental perspective, from a social perspective, from an economic perspective. But how would you sort of paint that picture, and then we can then see what stewardship might be able to do for those, challenges?
Andy Brown: I mean, I can jump in again, you know, agreeing, I'm gonna violently agree with what James is saying in terms of how you make decisions. There are, there will always be trade-offs in life, in business, in the system, but it is understanding what are you trying to do and understanding the value that you are gonna potentially protect or create, and the value that you might destroy, both environmental value, social value, and economic value.
Andy Brown:Until organizations understand the value that they create in delivering their purpose or delivering this ultimate aim of stewardship You can't have these kind of eyes open decision-making processes. You've got to understand, right, okay, in doing X, Y, or Z, whatever it is you want to do, you know, removing phosphate flows in, into a river, for example. What are the different options for removing that to deliver your longer term outcome based on stewardship? What are the environmental impacts? What are the social impacts? What are the financial impacts? Optioneering across those and understanding, okay, right, to do solution A will have a profile like this. Solution B will have a profile like that. Solution D will have a profile like this. Then you can start to have kind of proper, mature conversations around it. But also then you've got that other element of what I would consider accountability to say, okay, it is not just for the organization to make those decisions.
It is for stakeholders that have a important role or connection with that organization to have a certain amount of influence with that and to understand and to be comfortable with those trade-offs and the ultimate decisions that you make. One of the final things I did with Anglian before I left was work with the board to understand what a purpose impact assessment would look like and to try and convince them to publish that, which they did.
And that was... It was looking at about 30 different things which were the highest kind of impact, biggest materiality issues, both from a negative and a positive perspective. So Anglian had set its purpose out as being to enable environmental and social prosperity to the region that it served. This was trying to really define that and then paint a picture of how the investment program and how its performance delivered or didn't deliver that.
And I think, you know, it's really important to be able to show those things that aren't working and the negative impacts that you have, 'cause then you can have proper decisions and conversations around it. So I think that idea that, gosh, could we actually move all decisions, whether those are investment decisions or strategic decisions or people-focused decisions around a methodology that understands more than just the financial impacts and the regulatory output is a monumental move forward.
James Jenkins: Yeah, I think to add to that, I think it's such a rich and complex issue. I think for me, if I were to look at it and say, what are the challenges we have today, funding is there. But I think record investment now in the current price review period: £104 billion, plus about £3.5 billion of the cost adjustment process. That's great for the next five years, but we've got to sustain that, and we've got to make sure that delivers. But to be able to sustain that, you have to have very high levels of trust and an acceptance that what you are delivering works. It will deliver the outcomes that people expect, the environment expects.
James Jenkins: And I think that's a real challenge. Even in reform, are we really thinking about how we build that trust and we have those complex arguments? To have trust, you have to be open and honest. You have to weigh those trade-offs. You have to challenge the orthodoxy, the different thinking, and when you're doing so, having that trust is critical to you experimenting.
'Cause as we go forward, there will be failures. But you have to do that in a system where it's safe and kind of talks about that. The Corry Review in DEFRA talks about allowing for sandboxes, safety and decision-making, experimenting, which may be uncomfortable for some, but we have to take risks to make improvement and do it in a safe way so companies don't get bashed for it or the regulator doesn't get bashed.
We're all trying to go with being clear on what your purpose is going forward, what we want to deliver. This system, I think, for me, has to become far more adaptive and has to be willing. Again, it's high levels of trust, the key to this. You have to be able to learn, respond to it, and therefore adapt.
When privatization was set up, it was very much injected to get a lot of money into the system for one reason. Like, the government couldn't borrow on the books. It wasn't accepted. It would have been looked at as poor management of the wider economy. So we had to privatize to get that increased investment into the industry, borrow from the private markets. That worked, but the world was very different back then. It was far more that the world wouldn't change. It was very much, let's set something and walk away and let it get on with it. But the regulator, the companies, everything was changing. We've got to be far more adaptive and learning, constantly doing that and reviewing. We need to be able to review. We just can't set and walk away, and we can't even do that within a private five-year price period. We have to allow for learning and changes, and that leads, you know, to allow the companies to maybe spend a bit more, to look at where they're failing and to support them rather than fining them.
But when it's, we far too much set and walk away from it, and we'll assume everything's going to be fine. But the world changed dramatically during the '90s, the early noughties, and we were regulating for a different world, and it started to go a bit wrong. I think we have to accept that, and we have to rectify that.
James Jenkins: Trust will be at the core of that to allow us to experiment, to do those trade-offs. But we have to be upfront and honest with people and not pretend to be able all the solutioners.
Andy Brown: And that absolutely holds true no matter what system we're talking about. So here we're talking about the interaction between government regulators, then companies, private companies acting as a delivery arm.
That the idea of purpose and stewardship is exactly the same whether it was just completely wholly owned by government and doing it on behalf of taxpayers and the general public. The system doesn't matter. The system will always have interactions and different players delivering, and influencing it, and therefore purpose and stewardship has got to be in there, has got to be hardwired into the thinking mechanism, irrespective of whichever system we land on.
And having worked in the system, I, I do genuinely, truly believe that this idea of purpose and stewardship is the bit that's missing, and it's fundamental to getting a water sector and a broader water system that works for the environment, that works for, for everybody who wants clean drinking water, who cares about the state of our rivers. And we're sitting here next to the River Thames, so a nice backdrop for us to keep it really i- in our minds. But also for it to be economically and financially viable in the long term as well. So, you know, I, I genuinely, honestly believe that this is the thing that will make the difference
Rutger Veltman: I think that's, that's really well summed up, and I totally see the point of trust, and I was just in the background looking up the trust equation, which is sort of zooming in my head, which is that trustworthiness determined by credibility, reliability, and intimacy, crucially, like the way that we actually engage people and how they feel engaged around it. And then, of course, divided by self-orientation, so to put the perception that people have, at least for good reasons often, you know, the self-interest that lives in the sector. And I think that one thing that really stuck with me, James, when you were speaking is the need for good storytelling.
Rutger Veltman: So it's having transparency, first of all, but then also being able to tell the story of what are those trade-offs that need to be made, what do they mean in the short term, realistically, in terms of the bills that we pay, in terms of the investments that we make. But what also ... does it mean in the long term, not just for the economic situation, the bills that we pay for water, but also what it means for the state of our natural assets and what it means for future generations.
One thing that I want to go into a little bit is why now? Like, why is this moment, such a good moment to introduce stewardship in the sector? So maybe starting with you, James, what is the why now?
James Jenkins: There'll always be opportunities in life. Society's always evolving, so there are always opportunities. So if we don't do it now, it doesn't rule it out in the future. But we are in a point where it is a generational shift, a generational opportunity. Water industry's been privatized for 37 years, 1989. It's operated in that system without really any major change in how it's been regulated. We're now changing that.
There's going to be an integrated regulator. When you create new bodies and set them up, you need to really think about what will bind it together, what will bring all those different agencies together, what are the foundations upon which you want to build. And if you get that right You know, the, the analogies there is I'm leaning into it. You get the foundations right for building, it's gonna last for a generation. It's gonna be stable for multiple generations. So let's think about why we're here, what our role is in the system, how we can all come together, stewardship, we'd be clear on our role. We're here to look after this resource, manage it. To meet not only our needs, but future generations, 'cause at the heart of sustainability. But let's think about how we do that and have those conversations. And that could be in the context of any system, whether it's private, or state-owned, or social enterprise. You've gotta be clear on your purpose, how we come together and recognize what our role is in the system.
What are we aiming to do? What can we coalesce around? Around something that's a critical resource. It's a fundamental human right, water. You know, to make money from it is a privilege and an honor, and it's not to be abused. And if the system is not working and leading people to rece-receive that's being abused, we have to correct that, and that's what the reforms are aiming to do.
But you need to be clear how you can coalesce and come together. Water is there throughout the environment. It affects everybody who is in it and everything, the non-human world, et cetera. So clearly, if it's that kind of issue, that kind of entity, you have to k-think about everybody coming together. What is your common purpose? What do we want to be here for? So organizations themselves can be clear on their purpose, but together, what do we want to achieve? What is our part of that solution that we need to find to make sure that it's better? So I think it's, you know, once in a generation opportunity, let's get it right. And sometimes you can just put all the structures in place that you want, but you need to be clear on what culture you want. Culture's critical. Culture matters in society as a whole. What guides us, what are the norms, what we find acceptable, why, how we behave in the way that we do, that really matters. It makes us feel secure, happy, allows us to go about our everyday lives a-and live them and enjoy them. That matters within an organization. It matters within regulation, but sometimes it's overlooked. Good organizations are clear on what they stand for, how people are gonna be treated. Let's be clear on how we want to treat the environment and others on that journey.
So purpose is critical. Stewardship, how we want to do that, is fundamental to me.
Andy Brown: Yeah, and I really want to make the point here that this is, it's not a soft option, you know, because you can try and have conversations about purpose and stewardship with people, and they think it's all motherhood and apple pie type thing.
But this is fundamentally about saying we have one aligned purpose. There is a thing that we all agree we're going to do, and you can think about it like a football team. You know, within a football team, you've got a goalie, you've got defenders, you've got midfield, you've got attackers. They have got one overarching purpose, and that's to win the game of football. They are all going to do that with an organizational purpose. The midfield will work in a particular way, the defense will work in a particular way, the goalie will work in a particular way.
So if you think about the water sector as it is at the moment, what we haven't been doing is being aligned to say, "Right, we are all trying to achieve these things, and that's gonna be our source code." If we can do that, it doesn't stop government from saying, "Right, new super regulator, you've missed a trick here," or, "You've not done that as we think you ought to do, so we are going to rectify that." It doesn't stop the regulator from going, "Company A, you have not performed as you should have done. We are gonna take you to task over that," and quite rightly so. It doesn't stop the customers and society going to government and saying, "You're not doing what we want you to do. You are not delivering on behalf of the UK." So the system is there to have the right checks and balance, but what it allows us to do is put the maximum effort and efficiency in delivering the outcome that we actually all want.
We've seen the uproar from the general public and the media about the state of the water system in the UK. Some of the arguments and conversations are confused. They're not always had with all of the available kind of understanding and evidence. But fundamentally, the passion is there that we want a water system that works for the communities, it works for customers, it's affordable, but it delivers for the environment. So that is what we should be focused on.
To the point of why now, a lot of my work over the middle chunk of my career was around climate change and not necessarily reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but actually dealing with inevitable consequences of climate change.
Andy Brown: You cannot fail to see the absolute imperative of getting this right now, coming off the back of this summer.
We're still predominantly in drought. You know, we haven't had much rainfall over the... This move into autumn, we're set to have the greatest or most impactful El Niño event ever. So things are not going away. So we have to absolutely optimize the system to work as effectively it can do. And so, yeah, the reform is here, so let's do it now. The external pressure is there, so let's do it now. And with the development of things like ISO 37011, which is the first international standard on what a purpose-driven organization and purpose-driven system can look like, we've got all the building blocks.
Why would I sit down with my grandchildren, which I don't have yet, 10, 15, 20 years in the future and say, "Ah, yeah, well, you know, we knew we needed to do it. We had all the tools to do it. It was difficult. We couldn't be bothered." Why? I don't want to have that conversation.
Rutger Veltman: I think that's spot on. I mean the change that we're seeing to the climate is most likely permanent and will only accelerate, so adaptation is here now. The need is here now. The opportunity is here now with the formation of the new integrated regulator. So this is an excellent moment. I think it's a very interesting opportunity because it requires a whole system to come together. It requires some new forms of organizing as well, where we, like, what we're doing right now, having these conversations between businesses on the one hand, NGOs, nonprofits on the other hand, the regulator, of course, and government coming all together to figure out what is that end purpose, what is the ultimate goal that we're trying to get to, and how do we organize ourselves, where stewardship is, of course, a brilliant way of organizing ourselves to make the right trade-offs and make the decisions in the right way.
Probably want to end here. Any final thoughts before we end?
James Jenkins: Purpose, particularly in the work that's been done with ISO and before that clearly demonstrate that that matters. It's robust. Organizations are doing this. So when you lean into that, you need to show people when you want to bring them on that journey, that you have the evidence to justify that change. So you can lean into that and those standards. But you also need, this comes back to your point earlier about storytelling. We could talk about all the organizational change we want and the new regulator, but most people will not understand it or buy into it. What will matter is the narrative and how you communicate that.
And stewardship purpose is, gives you a way to do that, to signal that change about what we stand for, what we want to achieve, and what we're going to be laser-focused on. So the storytelling, that communication is so important. 'Cause it gives a way of people to buy in and see that change is happening, that people get it, that it reflects back, that we're considering these things, and we're looking at doing that through a robust way.
So when organizations do this, lean into it. We should be adopting standards where, so they can be audited and checked upon. That's where it really matters, and people can have... It gives it credibility. So things where it really matters, that, yes, you have a good, good way of telling that story and being clear on it, driving meaningful change, but then part of that is being audited, being held to account by others. And if you do that through a recognized standard, that really helps, I think.
Andy Brown: Yeah, I absolutely agree. And I think for me there is an absolute desire for change. There is a desire to see a water sector really fit for purpose. And I guess my question is, well, if not this, if not purpose and stewardship, then what?
Someone tell me a better way of doing it. Someone else show me how you knit this stuff together to deliver what we really need within this country. And I think, you know, what an amazing thing to do in two years, three years' time, to be turning around and going, "We've created the first truly purpose-driven sector in the UK”.
And if we can do it in water, why can't we do it in energy? Why can't we do it in road and rail? Why can't we do it in the food sector?" That's what we have. I think we have the potential to radically change the way we think about how our systems work for the good of everybody who lives in the UK and to the environment that we all rely on.
Rutger Veltman: I really like that. That's a brilliant note to end on. I really want to thank you both. Andy Brown, thanks a lot for coming here to the Clarasys HQ next to the Thames as we're speaking, and thank you very much, James Jenkins, for coming here as well and talking about this important topic.
A quick plug for anyone who wants to find out more about stewardship, James, I think you've written some brilliant thought leadership about it together with colleague Jo Jolly. We'll ping the link to some articles, beneath this podcast. And Andy, I know we did some thought leadership on stewardship and purpose as well, and I'll link the new ISO and some of the stuff that comes out of that as well because I think it has a good crossover with the conversation we've had today. So thank you very much.
Thank you.
Clarasys: Thank you for joining us for another episode of Nevermind the Pain Point. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe on your favorite podcasting app or site. We would love your feedback, so please leave a review or drop us an email at podcast@clarasys.com. And for more information about us, visit our website: clarasys.com.
Clarasys helps organisations align purpose, governance, people and decision-making to deliver meaningful, sustainable change for customers, communities and the environment.
Explore our purpose and impact consulting services or get in touch to find out more.