🎙 Boardroom Clarity in Complex Times: A Conversation with Celia Pronto

In this first guest episode of OnBoard, Liza Tullidge sits down with powerhouse non-executive Célia Pronto, who is an award-winning Director with over 30 years’ experience in the food manufacturing, restaurant, logistics, travel, hospitality, leisure, FMCG, E-Commerce, automotive retail and utility sectors.

Together, they explore what it takes to lead with clarity in an increasingly complex board landscape—navigating long-term value creation, emerging political and operational risks, and evolving responsibilities around ESG, EDI, and strategy. From redefining how boards embed values into decision-making to simplifying ESG integration without losing rigour, this conversation is a must-listen for both new and experienced directors seeking to govern with greater impact.

We unpack:

✅ Why good governance starts with long-term thinking, not headlines.

✅ How to lead with values in a volatile political and regulatory environment.

✅ When it’s time to reframe ESG—not abandon it.

✅ What makes board service more demanding—and more critical—than ever before.

Whether you’re seeking inspiration, practical wisdom, or a recalibration on how to show up in the boardroom, this episode delivers.

🎙 Navigating OnBoard: Your Guide to Governance Insights

To help you easily find the episodes most relevant to you, we use a simple emoji system to categorize our content. Whether you're here for technical deep dives, board strategy, or practical NED advice, this guide will help you tune into the right conversations:

💡 = Innovation & Emerging Topics → Covering AI governance, future boardroom trends, and technology disruptions.
💪 = Expanding Governance Practice → Exploring governance frameworks, board leadership, and fiduciary responsibilities.
🎯 = Practical Boardroom Skills → Tactical advice on NED positioning, leadership development, and board effectiveness.
🔥 = Critical Risks & Challenges → Addressing regulatory shifts, ESG strategy, crisis management, and corporate risk.
🎙 = Thought Leadership & Expert Insights → Featuring guest interviews and in-depth discussions on the evolving board landscape.

Every episode will include its emoji category in the title—so whether you’re looking to stay ahead of AI risks, refine your board strategy, or hear from governance experts, you’ll know exactly where to start.

Transcript

Liza (00:16)
Hello and welcome to this episode of On Board. I'm Liza Tullidge and today's episode is a conversation with Célia Pronto, an incredibly experienced non-executive and chair whose portfolio has ranged from hospitality, food and bev, philanthropy to infrastructure. She sat on the board of companies like MotoHospitality, Camden BRI and Southeast Water UK. Recently we had a great conversation over a catch up.

where Celia's advice on simplifying the conversations in an increasingly complex landscape really resonated with me, and I knew we needed to share it here in case it might help other non-executives. In this conversation, we explore how organizations can navigate a volatile political and operational landscape to ensure they aren't setting themselves up for decision whiplash and instead make thoughtful, intentional decisions around topics such as ESG, EDI, and other strategic initiatives.

Additionally, we explore how boardrooms can stay anchored to core values, ensuring that every decision truly adds value, even when it might not be the most popular choice. We dive right into the heart of it here. So let's tune in and enjoy.

Liza (01:28)
we have so many things on our agenda at any given time as directors that it sometimes obviously you need a way to knock something off the agenda, but also, you know, it's a really important way to be able to have that conversation of, hey, are we just making a choice because it's popular and sexy or have we not done our job and chosen something that we actually see a merit and a value in and.

even if the tides change, does that mean that we need to change with the tides? And so it's interesting that you're the way, I could nowhere near sum it up as well as you, but it was interesting. I basically got to say, hold on, I know there's a conversation I'll share with you on this one.

Celia (02:12)
Yeah, I think it's the balance between clearly the world changes, Consumer needs change, whoever your consumers or customers are. We know more about the environment or we know more about sustainability or we know more about DEI, whatever it might be that you're looking at as an organization. And clearly you need to adapt to that. But there's a difference between that kind of tide is changing and this sort of

populist who shouts loudest. Those are the people's opinions who we take into the boardroom. And really coming back to what is core to our principles and our values and our strategy.

Liza (02:58)
Hmm, I think you've summed that up really well in the fact of any new idea requires iteration and learning. I was reading an article this morning that was basically aggressively against this concept of the win-win mindset. But all the authors did was show the problems without showing any iteration or solution. And I agree, think there's some things will work. Like we as boards might back an initiative that ultimately proves to not be as effective as we had hoped or have.

more complications than we expected or might've been set out with the best intentions and PR might've gotten ahead of us, we might've unintentionally ended up greenwashing or something just because there's a learning curve required. And I think that iteration and that refinement and that curiosity is so key, but it's very different than, I sometimes see what's been going on in the US, it's almost like when we're kids and have to figure out something hard, you know, if...

If someone tells us it's okay, you don't have to do the hard thing, is that actually helping us? Like for so many of us, for our organizations, sure, there might be elements where we were speculatively or altruistically exploring, but there's so many elements that are critical to our bottom line. mean, wildfires will keep burning. People are getting more and more progressive in their concepts of what is acceptable, what's living wage, what's fair. You know, all of these different.

not to mention the rapid emergence of AI, but these things have real impact on our bottom line and they're more than just a checklist or a political agenda. And if we don't have to figure out the hard things, are we actually benefiting? Are we actually doing something that feels comfortable right now but is putting us in a more complicated and a harder place?

six months, a year, five years, 10 years from now.

Celia (05:00)
Yeah,

I think there's so much truth in that. I think, you know, in the end, clearly when you sit on a board, there's collective responsibility. But each of us individually have to be able to look ourselves in the eye and know that we've done everything we possibly can to lead the organization in a better place than that in which we found it. And for me, a...

A sort of live example of that is one of my companies is a water company board. And when we talk about our responsibility and when we talk about the decisions we're making, investment in infrastructure, when we talk about biodiversity, when we talk about sustainability, we're thinking 50, 75 years into the future. Because particularly the infrastructure

investments that we make today, we need to think about multi-generational impact and how is that going to ensure water supply for future generations. And in some ways you could say, well, that's easier in something like water, but there are many, many other similar sorts of organizations where you can take that very, very long-term view.

Liza (06:24)
Do you find in with that, obviously there's a real investment that comes with the infrastructure scale for a water company, I'm guessing. And for you guys, has to be, it's not that you can do the tech idea of fail fast and figure it out. Do you find that in the boardrooms, in that boardroom, does that almost make it more intentional or more of a resistance? Because I can imagine, I can see where that, obviously that makes you probably more intentional in your planning.

but I can also see easily where introducing an unknown factor or something that feels uncertain could face quite a bit of resistance in the boardroom. Do you see kind of one way or the other, a bit of both?

Celia (07:09)
⁓

I've never seen resistance, interestingly. That's never really come up. It's very much been around intention. Let's be really intentional with the decisions that we're making and think about the long-term consequences of the decisions that we're making. But I think you can also flip it the other way, which is...

Even if you're not an organization where you're having to think about those multi-generational impacts of your investments. I think for many organizations, the reason that they don't try, whether it's new technologies or something that might be considered a bit riskier is because we've become so risk averse. We've become so risk averse to what customers might say, what the media might say, what our stakeholders and shareholders might say.

And of course that absolutely needs to be part of the conversation and part of the consideration. But I think we've almost gone so far down the, we're worried about the risks attached to this that we don't necessarily always just think about how we can do it with the right guard rails and framework around it. But how do we go down this path?

Liza (08:28)
I think you're spot on that. I heard someone recently say that we've become accountability phobic that almost in classifying it to ourselves as being Careful that what we've actually done is almost convinced ourselves that if something goes wrong We can't be accountable. So therefore we can't let something go wrong and I think that was that's a really interesting one so for you guys then in in that process of kind of

addressing that risk aversion and balancing that with where we kind of need to go. How do you navigate that in conversations? Because I think part of the big thing is obviously it's easy to talk about the board as this big mythic entity or this hall of heroes, but at the of the day it's populated by individuals. And each of us, think whilst it's becoming more and more of a common understanding, there still is especially around topics like

emerging technologies or sustainability where there's still often education or an education gap or knowledge gap and part of that then becomes it becomes even more important to communicate with that human not necessarily with the idea. So how do you go about I know you mentioned when we spoke earlier kind of that really speaking simply to the human but I'd love to hear a bit more about kind of how you navigate that.

risk or popular opinion balance with where companies know they need to go.

Celia (10:03)
Yeah, I think it is. I think you do have to be very, very nuanced with it because it really does depend on firstly, the organizational culture. And is it a very direct talking, just tell it like it is kind of culture? Is it more of a consensus driven culture? Is it the kind of culture where people move, the organization moves slowly, but they will get there. Is it one that's completely

Liza (10:07)
Hmm.

Celia (10:32)
closed off to any new ideas. So I think you've sort of got to understand the environment that you are playing in and then be able to tailor and nuance your approach based on that. But I think the fundamentals of the questions you need to ask are still the same. What is our strategy? Is our strategy fit for purpose in a world that's changing around us?

Is our strategy responsible in a world that's changing around us? And by responsible, I mean in its broadest context. Is it responsible for our shareholders, but also is it responsible for the environment? Is it responsible for the communities in which we operate? Is it responsible for our employees and for talent attraction? So you do need to look at it in its broadest context. And then is it differentiating?

How is this going to create some growth opportunity for the organization into the future? And does it align with our values?

And I think those fundamentals don't change, it's how you articulate it that might be nuanced depending on the environment you're in.

Liza (11:49)
think you made a really interesting comment when we met earlier about that, especially that aligning with our values. think we've been, lot of boards have been trying to navigate, exec teams as well, trying to navigate how to pick their path through this kind of really volatile landscape, a lot that's been driving from the U.S., whether it's at the rollback of EDI or ESG mechanisms or kind of a bit of a war on sustainability.

and you brought up a really great method for kind of having that conversation, because I think often it's a really important conversation to have about our values, especially in terms of anything that kind of moves into the space of altruism or that greater purpose, but I think it often can become quite a charged conversation or it can bring out especially a politicized conversation. How do you recommend?

going about that conversation in a way that actually allows it to be, to get back to that human and to step out of a political agenda or that charge to try and get back to the simple job of, well not so simple, but to the job we have of embodying the stewards of an organization.

Celia (13:06)
think you have to do exactly as you just very eloquently articulated. I think we have to come back to has anything fundamentally changed about our organization? So not taking into account anything externally that may have changed geopolitically, but in our organization, has anything so fundamental changed that we need to change our values and how we operate in our strategy? So when we set our strategy, be that our

Responsible business sustainability ESG strategy or whether it's your EDI strategy when that was set what was true then and The decisions and the framework which were used to make those decisions do they still hold true Because if they still hold true, then you have to question What you are looking to change? Now you can change how you might articulate it you might

You might decide to dial up some elements. You might decide to prioritize one elements over others. Of course, that's just part of normal strategy and normal strategy implementation. But at its core, if nothing fundamental has changed about your organization, your values and what you're about, then you have to question why are you changing? Because there could be new leadership tomorrow in any other country. And if you're not US based in the country in which you operate.

Liza (14:21)
Mm.

Cause that's a really good litmus test on both ends. I'm guessing when something does change, but also when you're setting something to actually make sure that you're not just chasing a hype to use a kind of localism, but just actually making sure that probably the same way that we would do if it was a space that was seen as purely risk or purely infrastructure, the same sort of almost due diligence we'd do on a decision making. guess it's that same applying that same.

steadfastness to this to make sure, I guess when you're implementing something new, is this something that really does value us? How does it value us? Why does it value us? And is it something that we're willing to stick by? And then when temperament changes, being able to ask yourself those same questions. And I guess for companies, and do you have any advice for a company who maybe has recognized, okay, this does still have bottom line value for us?

This is still initiative that we believe in for A, B, and C, but because of maybe the volatility or a changing temperament, it makes it harder to operate. Do you have any recommendations for either how to kind of take those conversations or is there any experience that you've had about navigating kind of something that might need a little bit of weathering the storm to get through?

Celia (15:52)
Yeah, I think that's a really important question. If I may, before I answer that, I wanted to come back to your point about those organisations who may have just been riding the latest wave of what's fashionable or what the done thing is. I think frequently it's those organisations where when times get tough or when things are no longer fashionable, that's where they really struggle to articulate their strategy.

and why they've made the decisions and why they may have gone really loud in shouting about certain initiatives that they may have undertaken. Frequently it's those organizations who struggle the most because they haven't really thought through how their decisions align with their strategy and with their values. And those are the ones that frequently struggle the most. So I just wanted to make that point because I think it's a really important one.

Liza (16:40)
No, that's,

it's an amazing point, because I think so many of us, I mean, AI has been a great example of people, everyone wants to jump on the opportunity and no one wants to get left behind, but the ones who do it well are the ones who figure out their why or how does this align with your common thread or greater purpose or what you're doing versus just jumping in. I think, as we kind of spoke about earlier, this is where greenwashing and other concepts have come up where.

It might start with the best intention, it might start with the pure curiosity, and your marketing department might be the one that has the most capability to start out with, and then all of sudden they get a mile ahead, but if you never actually focus on closing the gap or actually integrating it into organization, all of sudden you're left with this huge gulf in between of you, and it becomes a lot harder to close.

Celia (17:36)
Exactly. That's

exactly it. That's exactly it. And then to your specific question around how to deal with it when times get tough. I think for me, this is about how do you, so if you've gone through the process, you've stress tested it, you've said, yes, this still aligns with who we are. Then of course you layer in the external environment in which you operate and you say, actually, do you know what? This may be right for us, but right now it's not a favorable environment.

in which we operate for us to shout about this. And I think you've then got two choices to make. You either say, we don't care, we're still going to go out and be really vocal about this. And I think if you've got sufficient scale and sufficient power, of course you can do that. But not every organization is going to be in that position. Second option you have is to say, okay, how do we think about how we implement this strategy in a different way?

And that might be saying, so let's take EDI, for example, you might say, we're still fully committed to this. And historically, what you may have done is you may have been really vocal externally with your communications about your EDI strategy and about the achievements that you've made and the progress that you've made. And you may say, we're still fully committed to this, but actually how we're going to go about it is going to be different. So we're still going to have goals and strategies, but those are going to be more internalized.

And we're still going to talk about it, but we're going to talk about it internally. And what we're going to do is leverage our employees and our workforce to be our advocates so that when we are looking for talent, have them be the people say, this is a great place to work. Not because I'm a woman, not because I'm maybe from a particular background, but actually just this is a great place to work. So that's more about the implementation of your strategy rather than the strategy itself not being fit for purpose.

And that's how we deal with it.

Liza (19:30)
And that's a brilliant point. And do you think part of that then factors into with where something might be unpopular and obviously then not having to shout about it. Do you think part of that also then comes with asking yourself the operationalization of elements? Like I think we're seeing that at least a bit with certain ESG elements where, for example, a couple of companies have rebranded nature into infrastructure.

or changing the language so that then maybe they're not having to loudly put it in their annual report, for example, but they're standing by it, but just putting it, not hiding it, but recalibrating it into different elements of business and tying it into a bottom line. So I think your point about culture really makes sense in creating that integration, but are you also seeing it in terms of this concept of almost, I hate to say a rebrand, because I feel like that just makes it sound fluffy, but a restructuring.

Celia (20:24)
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And in some ways that's not necessarily a bad thing, by the way, if you sort of park the reason why you might be doing it, it might not necessarily be a bad thing because sometimes people don't fully understand when we take ESG, people don't always understand your strategies. And so in some ways, if this makes it more understandable and people can link it to what you're actually doing and why you're doing it, that's not a bad thing.

Liza (20:54)
I agree and I think it takes it from almost back to your comments before about trying to kind of make it a quite simple strategic conversation. I think it allows us sometimes to, when we get caught up in a lot of externalities, to try and make something quite simple. Because I think I had a great, it made me chuckle, someone gave me an example of if we were going through a classic, like a risk register or financial oversight, if we debated a P &L,

the same way we might debate, for example, transition planning. How ridiculous would that conversation sound? And I think sometimes we forget how mired some things are in confusion, politics, or just a lot of different nuance, and how do we actually then break it, try and simplify it down into where is the value here? Not everything, for example, in ESG and...

E, T has to be relevant to us. We don't have to do the entire opaque thing, but let's figure out, let's have those real simple human conversations where we can figure out what does have strategic benefit for us. What could be a threat to our viability? What do we need to be watching out for? Almost like the same way you would with a risk register, just actually start to break down what specifically does it mean within there. And I think that might be what you were alluding to.

getting to almost not just to have the big fuzzy conversation of are we accountable here or not, but actually start to break it down into points of accountability if I heard you right, almost to make it specific.

Celia (22:32)
Yeah, I think you have to do that. I think your analogy of if we were debating financial statements in the same way, we'd be thinking that's ludicrous. There's a bit of me that thinks this is because with finance, there's a very set system. It's known, it's recognized, the benchmarks are there, everyone knows what good looks like. And so it's just so much more of a known quantity. And when you start to look at some of these

Liza (22:43)
Cough cough

Celia (22:58)
ESG considerations. Firstly, there's a number of different frameworks you could be using. So which one do you use? Which one do you choose? Every single organization is different. So the benchmarking in the kind of framework of what good looks like becomes so subjective. And of course, it is still a relatively new area. And so for lot of directors, they're also on their own learning curve to try and get up to speed with what good looks like. And so you're going through this got almost this perfect storm of we know we need to do something

We know we need to get our head around some of this. I, to a certain extent, think that actually the reporting regime masks and people hide behind that as opposed to coming back to the strategic questions that you were just articulating. So there's so many different dimensions which is where the complexity comes in.

Liza (23:50)
I agree, think someone made a great analogy not too long ago that was ESG and sustainability reporting has basically become like US taxes. It's become more about the game and how do you win it than actually doing it and doing it well. And I agree, and I think the ludicrous piece is around the fact of, I don't know if your boards are similar, but I've sat on a board where we've gotten lost in hyper politicization of something.

and this is an American board and I think that might be a bit of a factor. And we've actually then gotten lost in that layer versus actually ever getting down to the layer of where could this be valuable for us or where could this have merit for us? And I agree, I think you sit there and you look at like even the word omnibus, like the EU omnibus, like even that has a feeling that I think probably makes some directors want to run away in terror because it just sounds large and heavy and cumbersome.

But I think we are moving towards getting a bit more of that clarity, but I think it is, as you've pointed out rightly, it is about making sure that you kind of try and make it practical and tangible for you to understand where, for each board, where is value, where are you focusing, starting simple in a sense. guess if, for example, if you're a director and this was a new space for you, like I know when I first moved into the space, there is that feeling of however will I catch up, and I guess it's.

going back to that place of, okay, if you know that a certain regulatory standard is required for your company, just start there. Like take it one piece at a time. And I guess that's true also then for the board function as well of make it down to the pieces that you're willing and that you can and that you know you need to stand by and make them part of your operationalized strategy versus as a nice to have or, you know, almost like that layer of, I think anytime any of us have, we have things that we would love to do.

that it would be nice to have in things that we have to do. And I guess it's breaking it down almost into those same layers.

Celia (25:54)
Yeah, I think that's exactly it. if you're starting from the place of reporting and what we need to report, you're starting from the wrong place. You have to start with, firstly, let's understand where we are now. And let's get that external assessment. Let's bring in the external experts who can help us understand where we are now. I'm thinking particularly on the E, the environmental piece.

And then let's think about practically what does the journey look like? And on one of my boards, I really like your point about simplicity. They've actually condensed their entire strategy into the three P's. People, planet and product. And everything sits in one of those three buckets. And it means and they are a multi-channel operation with dispersed employees and

It's really easy for everyone to understand because they will understand which one of those three buckets does something fit in and what can I do as an individual to support one or more of those P's and really easy to articulate also for shareholders, very easy for everyone to understand. We can get caught up in all of the reporting and the complexity of it. Let's just drill it back to

what do we want to achieve and how do we achieve it and what's the best way for everyone to understand what we're trying to achieve.

Liza (27:19)
I guess it also empowers you guys as a board with quite clear decision-making criteria. If something doesn't fit clearly, I'm guessing then that it gets the opportunity to be interrogated, to understand why, where could it fit? And I'm guessing that gives you guys a little bit more of clarity into the entity. I think sometimes we forget, like it's easy to think of our company as an entity, but we almost forget sometimes to think of it as a persona on whose behalf we're making decisions. And I imagine with that sort of.

clarity of the structure, enables you to embody that decision-making criteria in a bit more clear capacity.

Celia (27:57)
Yeah, it does. And then I think the other piece is you, to my mind, at least it only really comes to life when you can start to embed it throughout your organization. So when you're talking about capital investment, for example, how are you factoring in whatever your ESG strategy is as part of that capital investment decision? When you're thinking about procurement, how are you thinking about

those decisions as part of that. So you have to embed it in the organization. And I'll give you a live example. One of my boards is a, is a scientific organization. So lots of, you know, very big brain people and PhDs in white lab coats doing very important scientific work. And, our single biggest health and safety risk is the fact that we use a lot of glassware. So a lot of glassware for testing of, you know,

the tests that the guys run and all you need is a tiny chip and you end up with people cutting themselves. There's obviously the risk of glass exploding. So it is a risk from that perspective. And we've had a number of conversations at the board about how do we try and mitigate for that risk and of course there's training, there's behaviour, there's everything that every director would classically come back to. And one of the conversations was

the operations director presented to the board that there was the potential to source plastic alternatives, which would obviously be much, safer. And we had to have this debate as to was that a better route to go because you've got the safety of our people versus the environmental impact of plastic coming into the organization. So you have to embed those considerations throughout every decision that you're making.

Liza (29:32)
Hmm.

I guess it's echoing down to like what people are doing now with putting nature on the board. It's giving you an accountability step almost as like a very clear-cut stake layer before it kind of the stakeholder consideration to be able to say how and where is this, does this fit and how and where are we willing and able to justify this and who are we who will be accountable to here.

Celia (30:18)
Yeah. And I think, you know, I think our jobs have got much, harder as directors because it has become so much more complex. You have a lot more stakeholders that you of course need to consider when you are making your decisions and the decisions have become marginal. You know, the line between the right decision and the wrong decision have become

much much finer. So I do think they are, I think the jobs become much harder.

Liza (30:55)
I can agree, I think, heartily in the fact that also too that we've got long gone are the days where you're kind of just comfortably sailing through smooth waters and just kind of making sure that nothing crazy goes awry. I mean, I think it's really for directors now that I think we almost have taken on, you have to take on a full-time job of curiosity because the landscape is shifting so quickly and.

Just everything is being shaken up, which obviously provides tons of opportunity, but also massive complexity. And for us to be able to deliver on the same way that a director, for example, maybe in the 90s would have done, it just requires so much more curiosity, intake, education, to be able to make sure that we can see, to just keep a ship steady, not only even to just be able to seize great opportunities that are coming, but to just keep it steady has become quite a...

Quite an intensive thing, so I think for any director who's feeling a little bit like, what the heck has happened? You were not alone in that regard?

Celia (32:03)
Yeah, absolutely. And I think the...

And I think about this quite often. think the role of the director has also changed a lot. If you go back historically and you read, you know, the old sort of learning material, it would have said you are there for governance. And the phrase I always like to use is you are there to make sure the organization is well, is well run and not to run the organization. Of course, that's what remains true, but a large part of what we're now called upon to do is actually be that support.

whether it's through mentoring, guidance, advice, being available to the executive outside of that formal board structure. Because it's a lonely job being an executive, particularly being a CEO. It's a very lonely job. You carry a lot of weight on your shoulders. You carry a lot more demands on your shoulders than CEOs in the past ever have. And I think having

Having a group of board directors around you who can provide you with that support and guidance, I do think is important.

Liza (33:13)
Yeah, and I think that's, I could not agree more. And I think it's really interesting the way that we're some boards start to shift in the fact of, I mean, as a board, you're always that kind of idea of the eyes and ears of the executive team when they are having to look down at their feet to make sure things are going and get done. Part of the reason you have a board is so that people are scanning the horizon for you. And it is, it definitely...

I enjoy the topics that we're leaning into, so it probably feels like more of a treat for me, but I can imagine for some it feels like a lot where you're having that job of actually keeping your eyes and ears up means the rate of education is increased, the rate of exposure is increased, the topics that you're having to, like, I can put up my hands and say, I knew enough about AI before to probably be,

well-versed, but now, mean, I all of a sudden feel like I'm constantly scrambling just to stay in the middle of the adopter curve. And I can imagine that that's, if you've been someone who's spent a lot of your career in that more smooth sailing water, that all of a sudden it's, it is a real change. And I think it's so important with our, with the directors who are starting to come into the board and those who are curious about shifting into the boardroom to really appreciate that this isn't.

This isn't a day of sitting on the golf course and clocking in here and there. It really is a job of curiosity. You're taking on companies really need executives, as you said, who are lonely. They really need you there as a guide. And that now comes with more layers of responsibility and a bit more of a time commitment.

Celia (34:59)
Absolutely, absolutely, which is why you should only take it on one if you're prepared to. But also be careful, you know, who the organisations are, who you associate yourself with. Make sure it's organisations where you feel there is a good fit with your values, what you want to do, of course, personally, but also you share the ambition of the organisation and you want to be part of supporting them and helping them get there.

Liza (35:28)
Spot on. And I think it comes back to your point about those questions around accountability. And I think, you know, that's a really great indicator too of any kind of question like that where you, that as a reflective question, gives you a good sense of what that board is like. Cause I think it's really important, especially with everything that's going on to be on a board that is either accountable or is sincere about figuring out how to be accountable. Cause as a director, there's almost...

no point in taking on the risk of a company that is burying their head in the sand or just accruing that liability that could come crashing down on you. And obviously that's an oversimplification because a lot of companies it's quite a complex landscape but at least if you know that a company if other if the chair the CEO of other board members can get honestly curious about that question that you've posed it at least means that hopefully you'll be able to be

met with some transparency in complicated areas versus if you're given that perfect PR spin, it might be worth having a second question of what's your real job here?