Responsible Impact

Responsible Impact Podcast: 104 – How Sustainability Went Corporate, with Asheen Phansey

How did corporations, of all places, become advocates for sustainability? What’s the relationship between sustainability, and the bottom line? And how are Blackrock, Syria, Unilever, fast fashion and apartheid all connected? Asheen Phansey (@asheen) shares valuable insights on the way sustainability has become a player in corporations and investor portfolios, and the silent influence in major economic shifts.

Listen to the show on Spotify, Apple Podcasts or Google Podcasts, or read the transcript below. Share with a friend and subscribe to stay in the know as we talk with more fascinating voices at the intersection of sustainability and e-commerce. Have a guest or topic you’d like to see featured? Drop a line: responsibleimpact@magiclinks.com

 

 

104 – How Sustainability Went Corporate, with Asheen Phansey

Natalie (10s):
This is “Responsible Impact,” a production of MagicLinks. As a company, MagicLinks connects brands and influencers through e-commerce. Our industry is a big player in a lot of environmental conversations, and while we can’t feasibly get our climate impact down to zero, we can be as responsible about our impact as possible. It’s this show where we take a good look at all things e-commerce and sustainability. Our latest episode discusses questions I didn’t even know I had. For instance, how did climate become part of corporate responsibility? Or what connects BlackRock, Syria, Unilever, the Rockefellers, apartheid and fast fashion?

Natalie (45s):
Asheen Phansey breaks it all down, and he explains how doing good and doing well are now indistinguishable under the umbrella of sustainability. He starts us off by describing a watershed shift in what business “should” set out to do according to the Business Roundtable.

Asheen Phansey (1m 2s):
The Business Roundtable, since the late seventies, has issued that these principles of corporate governance, where they essentially say, “Hey, CEOs across the country, here’s what you should adhere to when you run your corporation” And for most of that time period, they were ascribing to the old sort of Milton Friedman quote of “the business of business is business.” In other words, “our job is to serve shareholders is to make profits and that in turn will grow the economy and provide opportunities for everyone.”

Asheen Phansey (1m 40s):
And that was kind of the typical stance. That was what was taught in MBA programs across the country, et cetera. Well, last year they finally put words to this changing sense of what a corporation is and does at least in the U S and, and really what happens in the U S in this case, reverberates around the world. And so they finally said, you know what? The purpose of the corporation is not just to serve shareholders and make profits that go to the shareholder class, but rather to lead, rather that the job of CEOs is to lead their companies, really, to benefit all stakeholders.

Asheen Phansey (2m 21s):
So that’s shareholders. Yes, but also customers, employees, suppliers, the communities in which we operate and sell and the environment as well, which is a voiceless stakeholder in the way that corporations operate. The kind of most famous definition of sustainability was the one that the Brundtland Commission created in 1987, where, and I’m paraphrasing here, but they basically said sustainability means allowing future generations, the ability to also exist.

Asheen Phansey (2m 58s):
And if I’m going be glib, I’ll say that that pretty much says, you know, what, we’re allowed to screw up and use things and deplete things, but not so much that it robs future generations have the ability to do that as well. And so I think what we’ve all realized is that we need to flip that non-negative definition on its head and say, you know what? Our job is to leave the world in a more resilient, more abundant, more thriving position so that our future generations start ahead of where we are today in terms of the environment, in terms of justice, in terms of social equity and so that they can then build a society that’s even greater and even better than what we could have imagined and what we have to work with.

Natalie (3m 44s):
Is it a shift between thinking, “well, I made money, so I was a success” to “I gave a better platform. I resourced a higher platform and a higher starting point for those who will follow. And that makes me a success. ”

Asheen Phansey (3m 58s):
Exactly. The Biomimicry Institute has a great succinct way of saying this. They say life creates conditions conducive to life.

Natalie (4m 6s):
This feels so close to a conversation about indigenous ways of life. I think about this often that if the water supply in LA were to be shut off, we would all die because none of us know how to live off this land. Certainly, there are too many of us now, but even you look at places like Arizona or New Mexico, there were generations. I mean, thousands of years of people living in those deserts and thriving, and I would be stuck in a desert and in four hours, I’d be like, I’m going to die soon, you know? And there was information and ideas and ways of life that worked with the reality that people had, that we really threw out the window.

Asheen Phansey (4m 40s):
Yeah. I mean, a couple of the reasons I think that we really overextended ourselves, one is, you know, the fact that we are, and it’s, it’s like we have a bank account and where nature is only using income, we’re drawing down the bank account and using, you know, our accumulated assets. You know, that’s what it is to burn fossil fuels, which is essentially ancient sunlight. That’s one thing. And obviously, that cannot continue indefinitely. We’re burning down our stores of stored energy.

Asheen Phansey (5m 10s):
And the second is the, the idea of globalization. I mean, generally favor of globalization, but one of the challenges of globalization is that you’re no longer limited by the limitations of materials where you are. So you can, you know, pump water across the country and pour it into a desert and pour money and electricity into that spot in the desert and call it Las Vegas. And there’s nothing stopping us, right? Except for the fact that we are mortgaging the future to do that is a great metaphor in a book called “Ishmael”

Asheen Phansey (5m 42s):
by Daniel Quinn. It’s the story of human civilization as told by a gorilla. And so one of his analogies is it’s like, we’ve jumped off a cliff and flapping our arms. And we’re saying, “Hey, we’re flying, we really did it! We’re flying!” And what we don’t realize is that the ground is fast approaching

Natalie (6m 1s):
That’s, boy, that’s a visual.

Asheen Phansey (6m 3s):
The other analogy often used is that we’re, we’re burning the furniture to keep, keep the room warm. There’s a difference between sustainable living and creating more sustainability in our core systems and the ladder that I get really excited about.

Natalie (6m 17s):
Yeah. What would you like a bio on the back of a book cover to say about you?

Asheen Phansey (6m 22s):
Well, I’ve dedicated my career to figuring out how to better the world. And initially, my approach was a technical one. I studied engineering and went into some technical fields like biotech and aerospace with the idea that the tech could really advance our common understanding and appreciation of the natural world and of what an up, how we exist in it. I kind of went from there to moving more towards the human levers and the market levers.

Asheen Phansey (6m 57s):
I studied business, I got an MBA, and really embrace this sphere of corporate sustainability, starting from the environmental side. But as I then progressed, I realized that all of these issues are tied together from the environmental to the social, to the way that we really construct our society in our markets. And so fast forward to today, I feel like I’ve taken these various types of, of backgrounds and experiences and, and tried to forge this career of changing the world for the better.

Natalie (7m 31s):
I think that’s very noteworthy because not a lot of people switch between what we consider very “hard: sciences and then these sort of “softer” social science, cultural, (we say softer is in big air quotes and so was harder). When you and I were talking before this, we talked about experiencing climate change for oneself and how comfortable it is to sort of keep your blinders on. And I think that it sounds like a lot of that probably feeds into why people in the corporate world can behave as if it’s not particularly their ballpark.

Natalie (8m 2s):
And so they shouldn’t be thinking about sustainability. Do you want to speak to that whole process and then get into corporate sustainability?

Asheen Phansey (8m 9s):
Yeah. You know, these large systemic trends and shifts in the world are really hard to see and touch and taste and feel for oneself and the, the way that climate affects everything from the food that we eat and can afford to the way that we commute to the way that we interact really with each other and from cities to suburban, to rural districts and areas, it’s really pretty, it’s underlying everything that we do and we build as a society.

Asheen Phansey (8m 44s):
So if you think of, for example, the conflict in Syria, most people don’t recognize that as one of the first climate change fueled conflicts, but the, the genesis of that conflict was the desertification of arable land surrounding the major cities in Syria that caused a lot of these farmers who are either subsistence or making a living by, by farming their land, to come into the cities and really pour in looking for work, looking for new careers.

Asheen Phansey (9m 14s):
Because the farmland that they had farmed for generations, you know, was, was turned into a desert. And so that then sparked all this civil unrest of the cities, not being able to support this burgeoning populace and not having enough food and that spilled over into international conflict. And so if you think about how climate change affects, you know, both geopolitical and business interests, it’s so large and complex that it’s hard for us to be able to experience it certainly on a societal and a national level and even more so when it comes to focusing on corporate decision making and looking at our ability to make profit, you know, earnings estimates, and the next quarter, we’ve really become focused on a lot of these short term profitability measures.

Asheen Phansey (10m 8s):
But if we step back and take a longer view, we see the climate effects, many of the things that are fundamental to our ability in, in corporate America and in the world to really sustain longterm value creation. And so it’s that tendency to look a little bit too myopically that makes us miss some of these deeper climate impacts.

Natalie (10m 32s):
I had no idea about Syria. That’s flabbergasting.

Asheen Phansey (10m 36s):
It’s a fascinating case, and it’s, it feels so far away. But as we really start to look at everything from Superstorm Sandy, to some of the wildfires and droughts in the Southwest and California, we see that climate really affects a lot of the everyday business decisions that we make, that we don’t really think about.

Natalie (10m 56s):
It’s obviously individuals have their ability to sort of demand things as consumers, and then governments – it’s a matter of policy – but for corporations as this sort of mid-tier, and I say, based on size “mid-tier” actors, what are some of the things that go into their corporate movements?

Asheen Phansey (11m 13s):
We think about corporations as, as mid-tier actors, but some of the larger corporations have more power and influence than some countries in the world.

Natalie (11m 21s):
That’s an excellent point.

Asheen Phansey (11m 22s):
Some of the things that go into those decisions are looking at supply chains. For example, we look at supply chain risk as something that is quite climate sensitive. If you have a drought or a disruption in some part of the world, from which you source a key component for something that you make, that’s a risk that needs to be mitigated. And so you see corporations starting to increase the redundancy in their supply chains to have multiple, multiple suppliers that are sources for certain goods and critically in multiple parts of the, not just the lower-cost regions, but in some cases higher-cost regions, because they may have different climate risks, not necessarily no climate risk, but, you know, they may be at different elevations or they may be in different types of climate.

Asheen Phansey (12m 4s):
That’s one example. Another example is understanding the patchwork of carbon regulations across the world and thinking about how do we operate and sell in a world that has markets that are carbon constraints.

Natalie (12m 19s):
What is carbon constraint?

Asheen Phansey (12m 21s):
So what that means is we know that globally, we have a particular carbon budget that we can emit and stay within a two degree or 1.5 degree temperature rise just as we continue our industrial activity. Some countries of the world, particularly after the Paris Accord have started to assign that budget or their share of that budget, to the corporations that either produce or sell in their geographical boundaries or their, their national boundaries. And so in some areas, a corporation will have to measure its footprint and report it and take steps to mitigate its footprint.

Asheen Phansey (12m 56s):
As you start to think about more global and globally connected corporations, it starts to not make sense just to measure the output or the emissions in one particular operation or a bunch of different operations in different parts of the world. It starts to make more sense to say, well, let’s look at our overall carbon footprint. Let’s look at what we’re admitting relative to the, the sort of budget, if you would, that is assigned to our industry or our nation or our, or where we produce resell and effectively try to figure out how we can be active corporate citizen or a, of the world, a global citizen.

Natalie (13m 37s):
Would I be right in thinking that this accountability process that you’re describing is almost a bookend to the first wave of globalism that we’ve seen happen? So the first wave, in my mind, being that companies could really fully reach all the way around the world and that there could be this interchange of products and money and things. And that now the other portion of that is the accountability for that specifically, when it comes to climate change. And that there’s a difficulty in enforcing that because where there was a very clear motivator for setting up those systems, because there was profit.

Natalie (14m 8s):
Now on the backend, there’s cost and accountability, and people are much less eager to jump on that boat. Is that kind of the right way to think of the impediments that you’re kind of describing now?

Asheen Phansey (14m 20s):
Yeah. I think there’s really two forces that are pushing us towards that. One is that we particularly in the quote, unquote, “Industrialized, Western World” have pushed a lot of the downsides of our production and consumption into other regions of the world. And so if you, if you, I mean, we can certainly talk about social ramifications, but if you look just purely at the environmental, those used to be the idea that, all right, we’re, we’re pushing our pollution to rivers that don’t live around or oceans or bodies water, or arable land.

Asheen Phansey (14m 56s):
But what we’ve increasingly realized is you can’t push climate because there’s only one atmosphere and a kilogram of carbon or a ton of carbon that you admit anywhere in the world enters the one atmosphere. And so that’s not something that we can get away from. This is a problem that can’t be solved by any particular nation working within its own borders. And so a lot of the, just as you say, just as the goods and services and profit flow around the world, so do the responsibilities of the social and environmental impacts.

Asheen Phansey (15m 29s):
And so we see in the environmental, or specifically in the climate space, this was certainly true after the Paris Accord, but it has been true, you know, for, for much longer than that in terms of the social fabric and the, and you know, various laws around social and working conditions. We see those corporations being held accountable for things that happened far up in their supply chain, particularly where social media can highlight those, those things really quickly with, you know, videos and, and this rural evidence.

Asheen Phansey (16m 3s):
So we see a lot of corporations start to say, you know what, we need to figure out what’s going on as a result of our operations and make sure that we stay on top of it.

Natalie (16m 12s):
When you say being held accountable, do you mean in a legal sense by a government, or do you mean by shame of citizens?

Asheen Phansey (16m 20s):
Yeah, sometimes in a legal sense, but I think much more powerful our market levers. You know, when you have people start to call it for the boycott of a given brand, or even when you have people start to point to various industries like looking at fast fashion and saying, Hey, there’s a real cost to the way that fast fashion is done, let’s abandon it. Suddenly you have these, you know, fast fashion brands on that example set up and take notice and say, you know, what are our fundamental business models being called into question? Our industry is being called into question. And so let’s figure out how to work with our consumers and craft a better reality and a better story.

Natalie (16m 57s):
What’s been the evolution of corporate sustainability, or rather of sustainability becoming a corporate value?

Asheen Phansey (17m 3s):
Yeah, I think you see, we can trace several sources or, or roots of, of this overall corporate sustainability movement. So in the, in the space of product manufacture, it really — of companies making things — really started in their environmental health and safety divisions that now often are called environmental health, safety and sustainability. And so you had, first of all, a movement to take care of the workers who were producing these things both here and abroad, and then to start thinking about what we were producing and the byproducts and emissions of those things.

Asheen Phansey (17m 40s):
So it was both social and environmental, but really focused in particular from an output perspective on the environmental effects in concert with that, you had corporate philanthropy, which, I mean, you can trace that all the way back to, to Rockefeller, but you had corporations establishing community giving and, you know, groups, you had some of them establishing their own foundations and beginning to do philanthropy as, as companies really in order to improve their image.

Asheen Phansey (18m 18s):
But as it started to become part of their brands, it started to attract more workers and employees would get really excited and proud of the different charities and events that their corporations would support. And so that started to evolve into what we then called corporate social responsibility, where it wasn’t just “let’s give money”, but rather “let’s make this a part of who we are. Let’s have our volunteers, our employees volunteer in these causes.

Asheen Phansey (18m 49s):
Let’s use our core competence, whether it’s making things or mining things to start contributing those skills to the social movements that we’re embracing.” And as the kind of CSR realm and the environmental health safety and sustainability realm started to come together realizing that these are social and environmental causes that are, are, have a lot in common and a lot of mutual benefit.

Asheen Phansey (19m 20s):
Those started to become managed in these burgeoning offices of sustainability or the office of the chief sustainability officer or equivalent. And the investor community started to realize that companies that manage these things well, so environmental, social, and we’ll then lump in governance, which has to do with how they make business decisions and establish their management structure. They, the investors started to realize that corporations that manage these things well tend to perform better.

Asheen Phansey (19m 55s):
And corporations that leave a lot of this off the risk mitigation strategies tend to open themselves up to significant risk that can damage their, their stock performance. And so the investor community really started to embrace this idea of environmental, social, and governance or ESG, which used to be called socially responsible investing. And, and that movement really, it really started actually from divestment of funding apartheid in South Africa.

Asheen Phansey (20m 28s):
And from there grew to this idea that funding companies that do well or that rather do good in the world also leads to doing well from a financial performance perspective. So those kind of three movements, the CSR movement, the environmental sustainability movement and the investor based ESG movement are starting to really come together to form this idea of corporate responsibility. And so you see some things that we wouldn’t have seen before.

Asheen Phansey (20m 59s):
So for example, Larry Fink’s letter, the CEO of BlackRock, where, you know, he’s, he’s written about this increasingly each year, but in, in the 2019 letter for the first time, he said, we’re going to make sustainability central to our investment philosophy because climate risk is investment risk. That was his quote. And so that really product mainstream, this idea of investing in sustainability as a core tenant of companies, and then alongside in 2019, we had the business round table.

Asheen Phansey (21m 34s):
They produce a letter in August of 2019 that said, we are redefining the purpose of a corporation as something that promotes an economy that serves all Americans. We now see this whole movement of corporate responsibility starting to be able to react, react to things like the black lives matter movement in the U S and globally to say, Hey, this is another example of what is our stance on race and anti-racism and how do we, how do we serve all of the stakeholders that rely on what we do in our business operations?

Asheen Phansey (22m 8s):
And so I think that we’re creating this more robust and resilient economy that really an equitable economy that really can serve all stakeholder

Natalie (22m 17s):
For listeners who may not be familiar. Can you give a sort of a brief explanation of BlackRock and why they’re significant?

Asheen Phansey (22m 23s):
Yeah. BlackRock is one of the largest investors and they, what they say and how they invest really influences a lot of institutional investors and a lot of the financial community and how the financial community is really thinking about and screening the things that they invest in and support

Natalie (22m 49s):
Do you think that skeptics could look at them shifting their investment strategies and attribute it to a personal preference from the people running the group? Or do you think that under a more rigorous critique from somebody who really just likes empirical numbers, that they would say, “Oh, no, they’re not doing this because they feel a certain way they’re doing this because legitimately, the numbers do show, you have to be sustainable”?

Asheen Phansey (23m 12s):
Really a blend of the two of those things. I mean, if you look at companies like Unilever, where Paul Pullman, who’s the former CEO of Unilever, if you ever heard him speak, I mean, he was more, he sounded more like an activist, or environmentalist than a CEO. Certainly Unilever’s 90 plus point sustainable living plan and metrics were driven from the top by Paul Pullman’s passion for the topic. I think the, the investment community is sort of the last bastion of following the money.

Asheen Phansey (23m 44s):
How do we create a more resilient, thriving market in the U S and abroad? This is a way to do it. This is, if you look at the performance, for example, of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, it consistently outperforms the rest of the Dow Jones. And that’s true for a lot of different indices that indicate how companies manage sustainability, because whether it’s a correlation or a causation, we see that companies that manage their social and environmental impacts well tend to also manage other things like supply shocks, things like gender equity and tech talent and all of these other indicators of, of financial health and long term health.

Asheen Phansey (24m 32s):
And so it’s probably, I mean, CEOs have children and grandchildren as well, right? They want to leave a legacy, both of their company and personally for their families. And they want to leave a world better than they found it. I think that that’s a human instinct. And so certainly there’s some sense of, of, of getting “religion,” quote-unquote from the C level decision-makers, but that’s, that’s the leading edge I would say. And the sort of mainstream that’s following is just looking at the numbers and looking at the fact that, I mean, as, as one ESG analyst put it, who wants to go to their CEO and say, we only have access to three out of four investment dollars because we don’t have a, a sustainability report, because right now one in four dollars is screened for environmental, social and governance metrics.

Asheen Phansey (25m 27s):
And so it’s become a business necessity really, right?

Natalie (-):
What’s a supply shock?

Asheen Phansey (25m 33s):
So in situations where suddenly a supplier is offline, you know, you can’t get parts from Southeast Asia because there’s been an earthquake and the production facility is shut down, or you’ve got a place in Europe that you source a particular raw material or a particular finished. Good. And they’re under lockdown because of COVID and quarantine, suddenly that’s a shock to your supply chain and you have to figure out how do we keep producing product and what, you know, what sort of inventory do we have or do we just shut down and say, Hey, sorry, world.

Asheen Phansey (26m 5s):
You know, our, our finished thing are good or service is not available until the conditions get better in this part of the world.

Natalie (26m 12s):
Is it strictly because they want to make sure that their supply chain is protected or is part of it, because by keeping suppliers in competition with each other, they control their own supply price line?

Asheen Phansey (26m 21s):
Oh, I think corporations have a long history of, of being able to put pressure on their supply chain in order to keep costs down. But this is a different thing. This is, you know, for example, a, Coca-Cola going to some of the parts where they produce their beverages, realizing that they draw down a significant portion of the water table in that region. And so if they end up creating a drought or harming that year’s annual crop, because farmers don’t have enough water, they risk making their workers sick and having to really struggle to, to have enough labor for their plants.

Asheen Phansey (26m 57s):
And so working with the community in that instance, and understanding how to improve access to clean water and how to make sure that they protect the environmental assets that they’re using is a business necessity. It’s, it’s, it’s not just a cost savings, but it’s, you know, there are things you can’t obtain, no matter how much money you have. And one of those is well-educated healthy workers, you know, in the short term. And so there’s many other reasons why a lot of these companies have realized that building the resilience of the communities in which they work and produce and sell is of long term benefit to them and to their bottom line as well.

Natalie (27m 38s):
Now, I wanted another quick definition. You mentioned the Dow Jones Sustainability Index? I hadn’t actually heard of that before.

Asheen Phansey (27m 46s):
Yeah. It’s a rating that is a really rigorous self-assessment that companies can do and then apply to, to be part of the Dow Jones sustainability index, or to be one of the companies that, that kind of pass their certification. And then the governing body of the Dow Jones will track the progress and profitability of the companies that pass their, their rigorous certification. What’s great is that it provides a lot of data on taking companies that achieve that standard and comparing it to the larger universe of companies that are part of the Dow Jones and allows investors or really anyone to do some data analysis on showing that companies that achieve good results in sustainability also perform well financially over the long term.

Natalie (28m 38s):
Well, as I mentioned that some of the initial sort of push for corporations to behave differently was rooted in not wanting to support apartheid in South Africa. I think that that’s a fascinating point, and I know that we also mentioned Black Lives Matter movement happening currently in the US, am I wrong for thinking that there has always been an intrinsic component of race in climate justice in sustainability and that it doesn’t get talked about very much?

Asheen Phansey (29m 1s):
Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, if you think about the fact that we talked earlier about it being difficult to see and touch and feel of climate effects, well it’s a lot easier for communities of color, because oftentimes they’re in flood zones, oftentimes they’re in areas of the world and areas of the country and cities that are more affected by, for example, polluting power plants, coal burning, power plants that put ash and particulate into the air, and lead to higher instances of asthma, for example.

Asheen Phansey (29m 36s):
So environmental justice is very deeply tied to the climate movement and the challenges that a lot of these communities of color don’t have voices when it comes to the legal system, the legislative system and corporate decision making. And so as we get more and more of decision-makers to represent the population, we can make better and better decisions about how to support a climate movement. That is just and equitable for all.

Natalie (30m 8s):
I’m so curious because when I think about apartheid that was many years ago, right? Well before sustainability seemed like it was fully in the national dialogue. So how did the conversation specifically around South Africa’s apartheid start? What was that?

Asheen Phansey (30m 21s):
So that was the idea that investors can create change. I think that was the first instance that I know about where by divesting in a particular society whose morality didn’t match our own. And this was really led by a lot of institutional investors with religious screens. So they would go to their, their investment managers and say, we don’t want you to invest in this company or this industry, or this region of the world, because it goes against our religious ethics.

Asheen Phansey (30m 59s):
And so that more broadly kind of blossomed into this idea of what we used to call socially responsible investing or SRI that then became Sustainably Responsible Investing. That then became simply “investing with a conscience,” investing, you know, while looking at ESG metrics, environmental, social, and governance metrics. And so I think that that was really the first time historically, when we thought about the power of investment to be able to create a social movement.

Asheen Phansey (31m 28s):
And now we look at it in that direction, but also in the other direction where we have social movements, like the BLM movement, the Black Lives Matter movement as putting pressure on the investor class and in investors or money managers, as well as corporate decision-makers to say, what are you doing to help solve this very real problem that needs to be solved in order for many of our communities to move forward and be able to take part in investing in America, to be able to have access to goods and services that Americans and other parts of the country and other associate economic classes already have access to.

Natalie (32m 13s):
If there was one sort of takeaway sentence that you would want people to repeat to themselves as they stir their coffee, or as they, you know, take out the trash, what would you want people to take away from listening to this?

Asheen Phansey (32m 26s):
I think the most fundamental thing that we can do is, is elect leaders and vote with our dollars for entities and institutions and people and decision-makers who promote sustainable ways of doing what they do. I think that’s far more important than recycling that one thing that you’re holding or making a compost bin or any of these still important individual actions. But I think the greater systemic actions really are what will change world.

Natalie (33m 0s):
Am I right to think of that visually as “it’s great to put your finger in the hole in the dam — ask for people to build a better dam”?

Asheen Phansey (33m 8s):
Yes, exactly.

Natalie (33m 12s):
Credits this episode go to Haesil Shin, Brian Nickerson, and the always great Davin Lawrence. Plus of course, Asheen Phansey, naturally. Check him out on Twitter. He’s @asheen. If you have a topic you’d like discussed or have thoughts on the show, please reach out! Write us responsibleimpact@magiclinks.com. Please subscribe and rate the show (super important). We’re available on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Anchor, and Spotify, to name a few. And of course, thank YOU for listening.

Natalie (33m 42s):
Join us in demanding a better dam. I’m Natalie, and I’m out. Till next time, gang.

You may also like

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *