Annalisa Gigante has been an award-winning innovator for 30 years. She serves as a board member of the Henry Royce Institute for Advanced Materials Research and Innovation and Cambridge Enterprise, Cambridge University’s seed funding and entrepreneurship hub. Annalisa is a thought-leader in innovation, leadership and corporate governance. She is Chair of Foundations for Learning, the Co-Chair of Women Corporate Directors in Switzerland. In this episode she provides a European perspective of ESG, talks about the governance of innovation and bringing innovation to the real world.
Thanks for listening!
We love our listeners! Drop us a line or give us guest suggestions here.
How Risk identification and management is driving ESG because its seen as a competitive advantage
Well, it’s the definition of risk that is so important, kind of trying to understand it’s both in a positive and in a negative way. You can really mitigate your risks by understanding what kind of problems you want to solve as a corporation and what kind of things are important for the company.
The fact that you can understand this as a competitive advantage is incredible in so many different things, not just in terms of what kind of products or services you put out in the market, but also in terms of employer branding or in terms of attracting the kind of investors you want. So, that’s why it’s an important thing to discuss really on the board level, because it has so many implications around the various stakeholders that allow your company permission to operate.
How attitudes toward ESG have changed
So, I’ll just take one example in health and safety. I come from chemical industries, large manufacturing sites. It’s a huge area of discussion and activity, and we used to think of these things as “what do you need to do in order to meet regulations in the various geographies in which you work?” Today we are discussing health and safety about people who’ve been stuck at home working on Zoom and being tired, how can we make their life easier? This is a completely different way of looking at this, and it’s so important because it has a huge value add.
I know that in Europe, we have a little bit of a different view about this. I’ve worked for American companies before, and it’s not that they didn’t do anything for their local community. They did a great many projects, but it was done individually, separately, each company at a time, and it is that idea of being in direct control of what it is that you choose to do as opposed to going through the tax system in order to help society. I think it’s fundamentally a product of different history that we have (in Europe).
Impact of Innovation
Cambridge Enterprise was created to help researchers impact the real world as much as possible, to try to bring up the volume and translate fundamental research into products, services, normally, technically-based things that can have an impact in real life. This is the very particular focus of the board – having impact rather than just monetary impact. Generating royalties or seed funding is a consequence of doing the right thing as opposed to the reason why it exists, and that makes the discussion on the board so much richer.
On the US coming a little late to the party on ESG, but accelerating action on the part of business:
What I love about things in the US is once they get talked about, they happen quite fast, whereas in Europe, we’d be talking about it for a while and then over time we improve gradually. I think the US starting to embrace these things is going to help us create much more critical mass and then implement these things so much faster.
On funding environment in Europe compared with US at the seed stage:
In Europe, in general, we have a very different environment around VCs. When I look at equivalent research universities in the US, they mostly look after patents and royalties because the ecosystem is there to jump in to provide seed funding. This doesn’t happen so much in Europe. One part of the role that I want to highlight is that whereas VCs normally look at what is the return on this idea, the job of Cambridge Enterprise is to look after the researcher, so things they do don’t get completely diluted.
Joe: Hello and welcome to On Boards, a deep dive at what drives business success. I’m Joe Ayoub and I’m here with my co-host, Raza Shaikh. On Boards is about boards of directors and advisors and all aspects of governance. Twice a month, this is the place to learn about one of the most critically important aspects of any company or organization: its board of directors or advisors, as well as the important issues that are facing boards, company leadership and stakeholders.
Raza: Joe and I speak with a wide range of guests and talk about what makes a board successful or unsuccessful, what it takes to be an effective board member, what challenges boards are facing and how they’re assessing those challenges, and how to make your board one of the most valuable assets of your organization.
Joe: Our guest today is Annalisa Gigante. Annalisa has been an [00:01:00] award-winning innovator for thirty years, with a track record of commercial success, launching and building multi-billion new businesses across different industries; from life sciences and chemicals to services and digital technologies. She serves as a board member of the Henry Royce Institute for advanced materials, research and innovation and Cambridge Enterprise, Cambridge University’s seed funding and entrepreneurship hub.
Raza: Annalisa is also an advisor and thought leader in innovation, leadership, and corporate governance. Among other things, she is chair of Foundations for Learning, the co-chair of Women Corporate Directors in Switzerland and RemCo member at Jagex, the Cambridge-based game studio.
Joe: Annalisa, welcome. Thanks for joining us today from Switzerland.
Annalisa: Such a pleasure to be here.
Joe: We’ve talked a bit about ESG, but I wanted to start with [00:02:00] a headline from a recent article that you sent me from Bain that starts with the following statement: “A wide gap exists between Europe and the Americas when it comes to embracing global standards for responsible and sustainable investment.”
I’m not surprised to hear that, but I’d love it if you’d talk a little bit about that,
Annalisa: It was so interesting to see that analysis because that one was in particular on private equity funds and it showed that eighty percent of funds based in Europe have signed up to some sort of ESG tracking, but in the US or in the Americas, actually it was so much lower. We were at forty five percent, which is less than Asia, at fifty five percent.
I thought this kind of told that story so well, the discussion around ESG in Europe has been there for quite a while, perhaps not under this particular umbrella, which is now what everything is coalescing around, but it’s [00:03:00] been part of how we think about what a corporation should do, what kind of things should be highlighted, and it’s really important to see investors stepping up their pressure in these areas.
Joe: I agree. It did strike me that the percentage of companies that had signed up for something under the ESG umbrella was so different in the US. Because there’s so much discussion about it, it’s getting so much headline, so it’s kind of sound and fury, but it’s not signifying quite as much as it is in Europe. Maybe it’s not typically American, but I found that to be kind of a sobering reminder that while we have had good discussion about it, there is a long way to go here.
Annalisa: Right. But one thing is signing up to these things and another thing is then implementing it. So, the next part of that analysis showed that within these private equity firms, actually their investments in [00:04:00] businesses that do something in ESG, in particular, is getting there, that part of it. So, on average, they were in the fifty to sixty percent in European companies and around the forty mark in the US companies.
Joe: Yeah, that’s still great. I mean, it still shows significant progress. Do you think that combining all this, as you said, under the ESG umbrella has helped push this forward?
Annalisa: For sure. It gives us a hook, and actually it helps that we’re now all talking under the same umbrella. We might mean different things. So I think there’s still a level of development there, but it’s important, for example, I know that EU is working on a taxonomy that they want to get in place by January next year, so that the definitions are the same as people try and work on porting standards. So, there’s still a lot of variety in there, but the fact that it’s all under one roof helps us talk about it [00:05:00] and then explain what kind of things companies are doing.
Joe: I think one of the things we had discussed earlier was the fact that the US is talking so much about it and trying to catch up has really kind of accelerated this whole momentum throughout the world actually. Is that fair?
Annalisa: Yes, but also what I love about things in the US is once they get talked about, they happen quite fast, whereas in Europe, we’d be talking about it for a while and then being exchanged over time and we improve gradually. I think the US starting to embrace these things is going to help us create much more critical mass and then implement these things so much faster.
Joe: I hope you’re right. I hope it’s not just that we’re better at marketing what we say and publicizing our good intentions, but hopefully, you’re right, it will actually lead to real change.
Annalisa: Opportunity is there. It’s up to us to take it.
Joe: The opportunity is there. But as you have said, it’s not what you say, it’s what you do, and that’s a standard that really has changed. [00:06:00] Good intentions is no longer sufficient at the top of a company. It really is. “Show me the money,” so to speak, “Put your money where your intentions are.”
Annalisa: Well, and isn’t that wonderful? Because it is about outputs.
Joe: Exactly. So, it feels like a lot of the momentum that’s being created is on the investor side. Serious investors, BlackRock, state Street have said to companies, “If you’re not taking ESG seriously, we consider that to be a potential risk, and it’s a risk that in many instances, we’re not willing to subject our investors to.” And that has had, in my view, a tremendous impact on how companies are viewing their role and how boards are viewing what they need to do to make their companies continue to be attractive.
Annalisa: Well, it’s the definition of risk that is so important, kind of trying to understand it’s both in a positive and [00:07:00] in a negative way. You can really mitigate your risks by understanding what kind of problems you want to solve as a corporation and what kind of things are important for the company.
So, environmental areas take a lot of space right now, and I’m so happy that there’s momentum building around carbon zero technologies. I’m really deeply into that. But it’s also interesting to see on the “S” side, so the Social side. In the UK recently, there have been some huge debates around the Deliveroo IPO or around Uber, what happens if most of the people that work in your sector are independent contractors? Should they still be independent contractors or should they be regarded as employees? It has huge impact on the “S” side of ESG, and it was so interesting to see how much engagement there was around those kinds of issues.
Joe: Well, I think the fact that that issue is now under ESG also gives it a lot more [00:08:00] credibility. You sent me a great PowerPoint that you did showing how it started, how it’s going on each of the ESG components, and under Social, it says, “Don’t break the rules. That’s how it started in public. Don’t break the rules in public.” Now, it’s something like surpassing regulatory minimum as a competitive advantage. What a different mindset that is.
Annalisa: And to me that is so important. The fact that you can understand this as a competitive advantage is incredible in so many different things, not just in terms of what kind of products or services you put out in the market, but also in terms of employer branding or in terms of attracting the kind of investors you want. So, that’s why it’s an important thing to discuss really on the board level, because it has so many implications around the various stakeholders that allow your company permission to operate.
Joe: I totally agree. I think the fact that it is viewed as a competitive advantage is the [00:09:00] driver because boards and management can not ignore it. If it’s a competitive advantage, you’ve got to think about it. I agree with you, looking at it as another risk that companies are trying to manage changes the whole conversation. It really does.
Annalisa: So, I’ll just take one example in health and safety. So, I come from chemical industries, large manufacturing sites. It’s a huge area of discussion of activity, and we used to think of these things as what do you need to do in order to meet regulations in the various geographies in which you work?
Today we are discussing health and safety about people who’ve been stuck at home working on Zoom and being tired, how can we make their life easier? This is a completely different way of looking at this, and it’s so important because it has a huge value add, if you think about it in these terms,
Joe: Absolutely, one of the things you brought up in this context was that multinationals [00:10:00] and the EU might think about this term that, I can’t tell you how foreign this term is, tax morality, I think was the term. Maybe shame on me that I wasn’t familiar with it, but the notion is that it’s not what you can get away with, it’s what you should be doing to be a good corporate citizen and a good part of society.
I have to say. I think, that is not an American notion. I think here, if you want to be generous and want to have an impact on society, for most people, the last thing you want to do is give it to the federal government. People rather have control over where that money is going and how it’s being used. But in Europe it is really a different perspective, it seems.
Annalisa: So, we meet among our team with Women Corporate Directors. We discuss things that are kind of posing these existential questions for board members. And for me, it was so interesting to find out from the [00:11:00] guys working in accounting and audit committees so that they were starting to get pressure around reporting where corporations were paying what kind of tax rate.
It came under this umbrella of tax morality, and I was fascinated by the subject. It’s not something that you would immediately think this is so interesting, but actually it has huge implications. It is again, for me, part of ESG today, because it is a way that you look at your company’s purpose of how you interact with your stakeholders and how you see your role in helping local communities.
Now, having said that, I know that in Europe, we have a little bit of a different view about this. I’ve worked for American companies before, and it’s not that they didn’t do anything for their local community. They did a great many projects, but it was done individually, separately, each company at a time, and it is that idea of kind of being in direct control of what it is that you choose to [00:12:00] do as opposed to going through the tax system in order to help society. I think that’s kind of a fundamentally different history that we have.
Joe: I think that’s right. I think the one place that what we’re calling tax morality might actually have an impact here is actually getting some of the largest corporations in the United States to pay tax. Right now, as you know, many US corporations do not pay any tax, and there is, I would say, larger conversation going on now that there should be some tax paid no matter how much good they’re doing and no matter what the tax code said, and that we should make changes in the tax code to reflect that, that multi-billion profits should not be generated without some kind of tax liability.
Annalisa: I mean, it is a burden for the regulators to get through, but on the whole, I think it’s quite good to have a level of competition among countries. I [00:13:00] live in Switzerland, which each canton has competition around tax. So, it’s not about fixing a level, it’s about deciding what your positioning is in that system on how you want to regulate it.
Joe: Wow, interesting.
Raza: Annalisa, you are on the board of Cambridge Enterprise. Can you talk about how Cambridge Enterprise helps focus the acceleration and impact of the University’s research in real life?
Annalisa: Well, so Cambridge Enterprise was created to help researchers impact the real world as much as possible, to try to kind of bring up the volume and translate fundamental research into products, services, normally, technically-based things that can have an impact in real life. So, that’s what Cambridge Enterprise does, it looks after patents and then tries to get royalties from them and then helps seed companies based on that.
Raza: Well, innovation drives all the [00:14:00] improvements in the economy. How does the board work in that respect for that translation of innovation getting into real life?
Annalisa: Well, so this is a very particular focus of the board of having impact rather than just monetary impact. So, having royalties or seed funding that goes well is a consequence of doing the right thing as opposed to the reason why it exists, and that makes the discussion on the board so much richer.
For that reason, the board composition is also different from usual. So, you have some non-executive board members that you have everywhere. You also have representation from the university, many academics, and then people from other technology transfer organizations. So, it’s a very, very rich set of discussion.
Raza: How large is the board and how does it function?
Annalisa: It’s fifteen to sixteen members. We meet four or five times a year. There’s the usual statutory things that you [00:15:00] have to do; approving sales of companies that have done well and certain things like that, but more and more kind of an interesting discussion about which areas do we want to see succeed.
It’s been fascinating that there’s been some analysis done in the UK over the last seven years, so pre-pandemic, but the VC funding that has gone into the UK system is quite interesting the way it goes. So, about nine billion over this time has gone into IT, and those are the areas where you get a very quick return, very high returns.
Then about four and a half to five billion has gone into life sciences, so medical diagnostics technology, and only about 1.5 billion on everything else, and those are the things that I want to see more of, anything to do with energy, carbon zero materials, chemistry and then also anything to do with history, social [00:16:00] systems. It’s so interesting, all these parts of research that happened in the university and that don’t necessarily get the outlet yet..
Raza: I think you’re right though. Even here in the US, a lot of funding goes to, what I would call, not deep tech or not hard tech. The joke would be that we wanted flying cars, but we got a hundred forty characters on Twitter. If revenue generation is not the goal for the early stage of innovation that’s being rolled out of the universities, is there then a little bit of lack of seed funding in areas, or is there a lack of funding for areas that need it?
Annalisa: Well, so in Europe, in general, we have a very different environment around VCs. So, when I look at equivalent research universities in the US, they mostly just look after patents and royalties because the ecosystem is there to jump in to give seed funding, [00:17:00] a funding to a lot of different things.
This doesn’t happen so much. So that’s why it’s part of what Cambridge Enterprise does, and I see that needle all over Europe along the work that we do with the research universities. But the other part of the role that I wanted to really highlight is that whereas VCs would normally look at what is the return on this idea, the job of Cambridge Enterprise is to look after the researcher, so things they do don’t get completely diluted
Raza: Because at the early stage of research and development, you have to fund things. The only people who are going to fund those things are the ones that are not necessarily looking for a short-term ROI on their investment. It is for the long term.
Annalisa, bringing this whole innovation thinking to a more general level, you have led innovation and R&D for large global companies, but these companies do struggle in innovating, if you will, [00:18:00] and then talk about the board’s role in fostering innovation in larger companies and what have you seen on what works and how can boards really effectuate that innovation?
Annalisa: So, I think every company he has this headache, how much of your time and resources do you put on making sure that what is successful today works, as well as it possibly can; more efficiency, more investment in that, and then how much energy do you put in what is needed in the future and pulling that trigger?
So, all the kind of discussions about what do you do with your excess cash, do you invest it in innovation programs, in R&D, or do you do share buybacks. It is so interesting. You can tell a lot about how a company is thinking by looking at where those investments go.
Joe: You used the term called “avoiding a Kodak moment” for your company, and I thought that was so well put, and I think Americans would understand what [00:19:00] that means. Could you talk about that, and specifically, how does a board avoid that?
Annalisa: Right. So, it’s stolen from what it used to mean. Kodak had it as one of their ads. For me, I work in innovation, Kodak is kind of the poster child of not pulling that trigger. So, historically, they had all the patents for digital photography, and the company just chose not to make that transition from film to photography, and this has been pored over by, I think, everybody who is an innovation nerd, like any professor in this area.
I think, fundamentally, it’s because the companies saw themselves more as a chemical company, and in fact, Eastman still exists, than a photography company, because then they would have transitioned, and it really does hurt, especially if you wait until it’s too late because transitioning from Business A to Business B, because these are people who have worked with you forever who have built great things, and when is it that [00:20:00] you decide to divest from there and then invest in the next new thing?
Joe: So, I know that hindsight is always 20/20, but what might have made a difference, and the thing that comes to mind is maybe a more diverse board, or I would put it differently, maybe a board with more diverse perspectives might have understood that thinking of themselves as only a chemical company was limiting what they can do.
Annalisa: So, diverse thinking, absolutely, we need to kind of up it in I think almost everything that we do, including the team on supervisory boards, and it is that level of discussion but also that ability on the board to have these important strategic discussions; what happens if we don’t invest in the new technology:? What happens if we don’t have anybody in our team who knows about AI and how an AI application can have an impact on [00:21:00] what we do every day? These are critical discussions and risk-based discussions, as we discussed earlier.
Raza: On the other hand, Annalisa, you also talk about this term called “innovation theater” where companies are pretending to innovate or posing a lot of lip service to that. How can boards not make it so that you end up in innovation theater in a company?
Annalisa: Right. So, innovation theater is our version of greenwashing, and I think it comes from all these wonderful startups that go up on stage and tell a story to an audience of people who they think they might be investors, but actually, maybe they’re just there for the theater. So, that’s how we picked that word.
It’s so easy when you’re on a board to take activity for output. You see the executive team coming up and saying, “These are the kinds of things we do. We invest in corporate venture team or in an incubator,” all these [00:22:00] activities, but actually innovation is all about outputs, and for me, this is something so important to share because I think sometimes we don’t make the distinction quite correctly between what is research and what is innovation.
Research is understanding what something is and it’s often measured in things like how many papers have you written, and then you apply it and that is called development, and then that is all about how many patents you have. Innovation is about either sales or the valuation of your company, if you’re a startup, so it is very output focused and it’s important for boards to be aware of that.
Joe: So, I would say that both for the type of strategic conversation we’re talking about when we’re talking about the Kodak moment and for this innovation theater issue, where is the reality of it? Is this just theater or is this something we’re really doing?
The issue in part is making time during the board [00:23:00] meeting for real conversation that is not having so much time taken about presentation and discussion about the presentation, but actually setting a time for real deep conversation, because, ultimately, I feel that is maybe the single most important thing a board does. If the board is properly composed and if it has the opportunity to really have these conversations, this kind of thing will actually be less of a concern. I think risk identification would be a lot more likely because there’s time to do it rather than, “Hey, let’s get through the report and talk about the next big thing.”
Annalisa: It’s so important. So, spacing the agenda is so important and how the chair operates on a board just gives you that ability to have that open discussion as opposed to being forced to going through all the statutory elements of your job; you have to approve accounts, you have to look at various things, but it’s also that ability to [00:24:00] say, “Well, now we’re going to have this amount of time for an open conversation.” The chair will not give their opinion until after everybody else had. It’s those kinds of small things that make a huge difference in the quality of the conversation and the decisions that come after.
Raza: And Annalisa, you alluded earlier a little bit, when the pandemic would hit, there is cash in the bank and you can do share buybacks, or you can spend it on R&D or innovation, or you can spend it in other ways when times are tight. What do you say to boards in terms of thinking about that allocation of innovation and R&D versus share buybacks?
Annalisa: Well, so I’m biased. So, I think that if a company doesn’t have the right choices to invest in innovation, R&D or M&A, they should go back and think, ” What more can we do? What kind of problems do we want to solve?” Because that is so much more interesting than, “Oh, let’s do a share [00:25:00] buyback and this is how we kind of improve our financials.”
I think it’s a question of having those options that are more interesting and give you a higher return than something safe that you can get.
Joe: But it’s more complicated.
Raza: Yeah, I think data would show that companies in tougher times when they had made the right choices that still continue fund innovation and research development have fared out much better at the other end of those tighter times.
Annalisa: Right. And for me, it’s so interesting. There was some interesting research done by McKinsey at this time on the last recession, so what happened between ’07-’08 and now? And it’s very clear that the companies that only worked on cutting costs came out of it in a really tough way, whereas the companies who are able to, yes, cut costs because sometimes you have to do that and adapt, but also [00:26:00] still invest, also have a view of what is going to be needed now and in the future and invest in that fared so much better both during the crisis and then especially when the economy accelerated out of the crisis, and I think the delta there is something like thirty percent or something like that.
Joe: So, let me ask you about gender diversity on European boards. Again, not surprisingly, Europe is I’m sure ahead of the US on this. What I understand from our conversation is that in large part, that is due to legislation. And I’d like to just hear a little bit about that because I think folks would like to know why that is.
Annalisa: Right. So, Norway was the first country in Europe to legislate on a quota for different genders on boards, and what was so interesting about that legislation is that it was quite hard. So, the country had tried for the previous twenty to thirty years to go through soft measures or training or this or that, and then [00:27:00] saw nothing happening, and then one minister for the economy decided to make a change and say, “Here’s the output, so you need to have at least thirty or forty percent of women on supervisory boards. Otherwise, we will kick the companies out of the stock exchange.”
Then things started to happen. So, some companies decided that they didn’t agree and they came out of the stock exchange, but many companies went with it, and then since then every European country has tried, whether it’s with targets or one way or another, but actually the only significant changes happened when countries decided to then go for the legislative approach.
Joe: Not exactly surprising though, because when there are consequences to acting and not acting, people are far more likely to pay attention.
Annalisa: Right. So, it’s mandated, and then you kind of try and hit your targets, [00:28:00] but in a way it’s sad that that had to happen, but that’s reality. We now know that quotas move the needle faster than the otherwise glacial half of the percentage rise a year that happens.
Joe: So, maybe you’re right. It is sad in a way, but I think the good news is that now that we know, we know there are ways that we can kind of jumpstart this up or accelerate the effort and not just relying on effective advocacy, which is obviously important, but not enough.
Annalisa: But also what moved the needle in Norway was the fact that companies would be kicked out of the stock exchange. And we’ve seen in other countries like the Netherlands, they’ve had soft quota system for awhile with a comply or explain clause. So, if you didn’t manage to get to the system, then in the annual report, a company would have to write the standard paragraph saying, “Oh, we tried really hard. We really couldn’t find anybody. That’s just too bad.”
Now, they’ve gone to a much tougher approach [00:29:00] because that really didn’t change, and it’s interesting to see Germany being the first country to look at quotas for executive boards, so not just non-executive boards. They’re the first country to say, “There should be women on executive committees and we’re going to start measuring that.”
Joe: Wow. How revolutionary. I mean, I think the fact that it’s wonderful that it’s happening, it’s unbelievable that we’re in the twenty first century and this is considered a breakthrough.
Annalisa: Well, I’m sad that we still have to explain why, because we’ve been discussing all along how important it is to have different points of view, different skills. I think the whole point of a board is to bring people together who have different skills and who care for the company and want to see it advance.
So, the fact that for gender specifically, we had to go through all these analyses, these correlations and these discussions of why it’s important to have our [00:30:00] view when eighty percent of purchasing decisions are made by women. I think that’s kind of sad that we had to go through that and that somehow that’s still not landed.
Joe: Well, and it is the reason that I think that suggestions or proposals like NASDAQ floated last year that there would be some standard for gender diversity on boards or else they would be delisted. That is what we need to head towards, because….
Annalisa: With a female CEO.
Joe: Well, yeah, exactly. And I just think that if you don’t do that, the pace of change is going to continue to be glacial. It has picked up. There’s a lot more talk about it. I agree with you, the fact that we’ve had data, just reams of data about this, and yet we’re still talking about it and it’s not really happened. It’s happening, but not happened. I think the lesson is you’ve got to make it happen. You can’t just keep talking about it.
Annalisa: And that’s the red thread in everything we discussed today, whether it’s [00:31:00] ESG or innovation or diversity, it’s about output.
Annalisa: And you have to show the results, and once you have the results, then you see the benefits that all of these things bring.
Joe: Yeah, exactly. Annalisa, what a great conversation. Thanks for joining us today.
Annalisa: It’s been such a pleasure. I really enjoyed it. And thank you for the wonderful questions.
Joe: And thank you all for listening to On Boards with our special guest, Annalisa Gigante. To our listeners, we have a request. If you enjoy our podcast, please take a moment to review it and rate it on the Apple Podcast app. It really helps others find and discover our podcast.
Raza: You can go to the Apple Podcast app, but all of our podcast episodes are also available on our website, www.onboardspodcast.com. That’s onboardspodcast.com. All of our episodes are available there, and you can even contact us with [00:32:00] your questions, comments, and suggestions on the website as well. We’d love to hear from you.
Joe: Please stay safe and take care of yourselves, your families and your communities as best you can. Raza, you take care, too.
Raza: You too, Joe.