Towards Non-Extractive Finance with Dr Melanie Rieback

In this episode of Be & Think in the House of Trust, I am listening to Dr Melanie Rieback CEO/Co-founder of Radically Open Security (the world’s first not-for-profit computer security company), and “Post Growth” startup incubator Nonprofit Ventures.

She lectures on Post-Growth Entrepreneurship at the Free University of Amsterdam, where she also was Assistant Professor of Computer Science.

Melanie challenges the traditional norms of the finance industry and calls for a paradigm shift towards non-extractive and sustainable investment practices.

She discusses the need for fund managers to adopt steward ownership, focus on long-term thinking and derisked returns.

She emphasizes the importance of reducing conflicts of interest, reforming compensation structures, and encouraging diversity of thought in boardrooms.

She calls for changes to support smaller pioneering fund managers who really believe in non-extractive models.

Melanie’s thought-provoking ideas and practical models serve as a call to action for investors to step up and address the systemic challenges we face.

Useful Links



Servane Mouazan: Hi, my name is Servane Mouazan I'm a founder and future thinker and strategy supporter, uh, at Conscious Innovation. And this is Be and Think in the House of Trust, the podcast for people who love to invest in social and environmental change. Through their action, they tell each other and the environment you matter. So I'm really excited to welcome Dr. Melanie Riebak today. To think in the house. She's someone who's super serious about the importance of building a sustainable and inclusive economy. She was named Most Innovative IT Leader of the Netherlands by CIO magazine and one of the nine most innovative women in the European Union. She is the CEO and co-founder of Radically Open Security, the world's first non-profit computer security consultancy company. They provide security testing services with a focus on open-source tools and knowledge sharing. She also co-founded Nonprofit Ventures, which is an incubator focused on supporting post-growth startups. They are ventures that prioritize long-term stability and impact over rapid growth. And I'd like to ask her how she embedded care and empathy in her work. Now, Melanie is also an amazing teacher and an accomplished academic. I'm a huge fan of her course on post-growth entrepreneurship at the University of Amsterdam, which is available for free on YouTube. So go and have a look, and it's going to rock your boat. You'll understand why if you listen to this episode. So drop off your codes, and settle in. Here we go. Welcome to the house of trust. Melanie.

Melanie Rieback: Thank you so much. Servane Mouazan: So, Melanie, let's just dive in straight away. If someone from the future were to introduce you briefly, what would they say about you and, um, what you've accomplished?

Melanie Rieback: OOH. You know, that's, I think, a tough question. I mean, I sort of like to think of myself as being kind of almost a systems integrator in that sense. I mean, I don't think actually that anything I'm doing is so innovative. I think actually what I'm doing is I'm taking bits and pieces of all the other great, awesome stuff that other people have done. And really what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to create a coherent framework that we can put all these different awesome pieces of things into, like concepts likea non extractive business. I cannot lay claim to this at all. Islamic Finance has been on that topic for, uh, some number of centuries already. Uh, certainly Mohammed, uh, Yunus also with this concept of social business. I mean, he's certainly been on this for quite some time as well. Uh, but also so many other pieces. I mean degrowthpost-growthh donut. But also just so many ideas. Zebras. Also just social enterprise itself and the entire legacy, even from B Corps, uh, uh, up through steward ownership. I think nothing in isolation is perfect. Uh, but I do think, though, that if we take the entire palette of different tools that we have alsoco-opss, uh, but also sustainable finance. I think if we look at things with an honest lens, everything has uh, strengths, everything has weaknesses. So really, I think that what I'm trying to do here is I'm just trying to bring a little bit of order uh, to the chaos. I'm trying to provide a bit of a uh, useful taxonomy, uh, of those things that are out there. And for me at least, I'm trying to create some kind of a running narrative through it all, uh, that makes sense. And I'm also trying to give people the framework and also the courage,e uh, to also be able to take entrepreneurial action, uh, on that framework. Uh, because I think that's the other important bit. It's not just uh, that we need yet uh, another theoretical methodology. But I really think we need a mobilized community of professionals, of entrepreneurs, also of finance professionals and investors that are willing to uh, take action, rig?t. And that are willing to put their money and their time and their energy where their mouth is. And that's what I would see myself as trying to help uh, move along.

Servane Mouazan: Just simply it's so beautiful. You just painted the curriculum that people should have a look at if they're interested in that ecosystem. And I loved how you are a system integrator. Um, really paying tribute to what has been done, but also in whole humility saying, well, it's not just as obvious. There are good things, bad things happening all around them. And we need to take a seat, a step back and have a look at how all of this is integrating. I wonder for you to be a ah, curious system integrator and a great curator, all of these beautiful things that are available to us now. What motivated you to be and think this way?

Melanie Rieback: Well originally uh, I came at this quite uh, circuitously because I started my career as an It professional. I am a computer scientist. I've been in cybersecurity for well over 20 years. Um, that is my actual background. And I started a company myself out of what I felt was reallnecessaryty. Because I was not very happy with how commercial cybersecurity companies are. And also I have some ah, differences sometimes with uh, some of the um,behaviourss uh, that they show. I mean things like uh, cyber warfare and uh selling zero uh, day vulnerabilities tonation-statess. It's selling weapons, right? I mean hacking activists like Greenpeace because uh, they're so scary. What I really wanted was just to create a kind of social enterprise in the cybersecurity space. But the,en of course, I asked the question, well yeah, but what's a social enterprise? And everyone shrugs their shoulders because nobody really knows what social enterprise means anymore. Because we profess to have our triple bottom line of people planet profit. But uh, as Mohammed Eunice says, anytime there is a uh, conflict between people and planet versus profit, profit always wins. It's just a question of uh, to what degree. So after trying things and uh talking to people, I kind of started getting the idea that well, maybe actually it's the profit itself and maybe it's the incentive structures uh, that are actually governing all these horrible uh, externalities that we're getting in thismisbehaviourr of companies. Whether it's in cyber or whether it's gas and oil or whether it's uh education or whether it's a big tech company. At the end of the day, I think the root cause is the same. And that was uh, over the years, the conclusions that I started drawing. I mean also uh, just entrepreneurially speaking, I mean I started with no business background whatsoever, um, welcome to the club, but you figure it out, right? And after about four or five years of being a tech CEO, I started realizing at the very beginning, I thought this doesn't make any sense. And then after a number of years, I was like well actually no, this does make sense, but not for me. And the more you learn and then you meet people, you talk to people, you start getting into the rest of the uh innovation ecosystem, the venture capital ecosystem. And of course uh, then also you start thinking these incentive structures are very uh interesting.

Servane Mouazan: To be polite, I read um, somewhere, he said when growth stops, companies burning through other people's capital will find themselves in trouble. What did you mean in practice?

Melanie Rieback: I don't remember saying it in those exact words, but I uh, think I can explain the idea. Most companies these days are trained to live off of other people's money. I can't say it any other way, because the way that we're innovating uh, with startups in our current startup ecosystem, our startup ecosystem is a lottery for investors. Uh, we know, statistically speaking, that uh, of course, nine uh, out of ten startups are going to fail. That's why the 10th, of course, has to knock out of the park uh, and preferably become uh, a unicorn. But in order to become that big that quickly, of course uh, that requiressuper-fastt growth, includingsuper-fastt hiring. And people,e of course, are uh one of the most expensive costs uh that a company can have. And thereares very few ways that the uh, actual revenue of a company can keep up with that rate of hiring. We're also subsidizing customer uh, acquisition and uh, the problem is of course uh, as you grow, if you're in the red, as you grow, you're burning cash faster. And this leads to the uh familiar situations uh with WeWork, of course,e um, and some companies never grow out of it. I mean certainly a lot of the giant unicorns, I mean 90% of them are cash losing, have always been cash losing, and probably will remain cash losing. And yet uh, they still survive. And then not enough people ask how. And also certainly not enough people ask, whose money are they spending? And really, what's happening, of course, is that also in the cybersecurity industry, we have a lot of market leaders that, uh, have never seen a cent of profit in their entire existence. And the problem here is that they are not actually, uh hello. Servane Mouazan: Oh, we've got a cat coming in. Let me explain what happened here as, uh, she was sharing the absurd and yet too common fact that many companies have been heavily invested in, but are just bleeding cash, and for some, never making a profit. Rocca, the cat came about to greet Melanie as they had been separated, and Melanie just returned from a trip. Melanie tried to lure away with some traits, but that didn't work, and that went on for a while. So I'm just going tofast-forwardd us to our next point, which is underpinning Melanie's work and teaching, and it's about stopping extractive practices. So, Melanie, you advocatepost-growthh entrepreneurship, a, uh, business model in which not growth, but impact, is the key metric for success, actually,y your own It security business radically open security is bootstrapped from the start, and donates 90% of its proceedings to NLnet, a Dutch foundation that is campaigning for an open, inclusive Internet. So, by believing that startups should focus on impact, rather than just massive scaling and expensive exits, it feels like you want to put impact investors a bit on a naughty step. What were your thoughts?

Melanie Rieback: Well, I think it's about more than just putting impact firs, because I think actually, that really impact, in that sense, needs to be, well, everything. Because as long as again you have the triple bottom line of people planet profit as long as you have that tension uh, between the people on the planet and the profit, uh, the profit will always play some kind of a uh, perverse incentive um, which would cause businesses to uh, externalize costs onto society and onto the planet. So really, what I think we need to do instead is really think about making businesses financiallynon-extractivee. And what exactly do I mean by this? I think that, uh, there are moments where financial value is pulled out of businesses. So, of course, uh, the largest case of this typically is during, um, exits, liquidation events, IPOs merger, uh, and acquisition activity. Uh, we're treating our companies really just like yeah, I mean, financial institutions in that sense, because as I was saying before about large, uh, cybersecurity companies that have never, uh, made a cent of profit in their own existence, what's happening here is that because they're burning through cash and they're in the red, and they have actually no prospects, uh, of getting out of the red. Um, their business model is actually equity. Right? And in that sense, these companies are basically, um yeah, I mean, they're performing their own MMT right. Uh, just, uh, creating these shares that they can sell. This is their primary business model. So what we have is companies that are sort of posing as if they are in a certain industry. It could be cybersecurity, for example. Things like building, uh, network monitoring appliances. But the truth is, they're not actually making their money off of this, off of whatever product or service that they're selling. And the problem here then, is that their primary source, uh, of revenue actually is selling equity. And that really becomes quite problematic because as long as we're in a growth economy, it's all good. But then the moment that the Fed decides to raise, uh, the interest rates and then the free, uh, money dries up, then of course, the whole house, uh, of cards collapses. This is what we've seen, uh, in the last few years. And it's precisely the companies that have a business model that are the ones that will survive. But the other problem, of course, that we also have is that the fact that these companies that are posing as having some product or service in some particular industry, but in truth, they're actually functioning like these small financial institutions. It is deforming markets because, um, companies that actually survive off of customer revenue, they need to make ends meet by selling things. And what that means is the unit unit economics needs make sense. But, uh, the problem is if these companies that are surviving off of customer revenue have to compete against thesemoney-losingg zombies that occupy the market and yet survive, this also deforms, uh, the market. And it causes markets, uh, to really evolve, um, incorrectly andmisshapenn.

Servane Mouazan: So you describe it. I mean, if it was a painting, I know you're in Amsterdam, so there's plenty of reference here. You're painting some canvas, some Dystopian canvas. Actually. It's what is reality now. And I sense a lot of that sense of care and equality and fairness from you. And just trying to make sure that we need to look at that and try to balance it out and put a bit of justice in that. I wonder what other ideas are making investors a bit queasy, but could actually challenge them to think differently about the use of their money, or actually our money. Melanie Rieback: Don't really want to make anybody queasy. Uh, I just want to get people curious, because I think that investors have a very large opportunity to really blaze new paths. Because the problem that we have right now, everyone, I think, pretty much universally knows that we've got problems socially, we have problems environmentally, we have problems. Uh, you can believe what you may, uh, and have any political orientation that you might, uh but many people are discontented. Now, I, uh, think most of us also recognize that business, um, and finance is at the heart of this. However, I think we're also not entirely recognizing why and specifically how we can make things better. You have sustainable finance, right? And we have our ESG and our impact investment and our carbon credits and our blue bonds. And yet most sustainable finance professionals also understand there is an open secret that much of what we're selling here is greenwashed. Which leads to cognitive dissonance. Because I really truly believe that most people in the sustainable finance area have good intentions. I mean they're attracted to sustainable finance precisely because it's less toxic than uh, traditional finance. And yet we've got blended finance with absurd risk premiums. When you're selling products with 10% premiums, you can't even pretend anymore. And the problem here is that that financial extraction is the greenwashing. But as long as we're spending um, so much time really thinking that we can sort of do well by doing know it's just like of course uh, from the book Winners Take All by Ananda Giri Haridas where he speaks about the term doing well. By doing good, how well do we have to be doing uh, while we're doing good? Um, the problem is that I think throughout the entire finance industry they're used to a certain level of living, right? And a certain amount of bonuses. Um, and just the compensation structures, the fee structures. 220 is pervasive everywhere. I mean 2% asset under management fee 20% carried interesmay bebe okay, m maybe in some cases it'll be a little bit more or a little bit less but mostly it's pretty market conform. And yet uh that we just don't consider things like with the 20% carried interest. It's embedding the growth imperative into startups also with Impact VCs. Because as long as Impact VCs using the same 220 as commercial VCs basically get to keep 20% of the value of exits well then of course we're going to be influencing our impact startups to sell tUnileverer. The whole incentive structure is not setting things up folong-termrm thinking, when precisely what we need is growth curves. We're basically not thinking in terms of exponentials, but we're precisely thinking in terms of uh organic and flat growth curves. But if you take that 20% carried interest and you get rid of it then at that point it's totally fine uh, for a VC to just say no worries, it's totally fine if you just um, architect for the long term. And perhaps, maybe there isn't an exit at all. Maybe instead the uh LPs can get their returns some other way. Maybe there can be some form of debt financing rather than relying upon uh, exits uh, to get multiples and it's slower but it's more sustainable. And look, I'm not against LPs getting their returns. I think pensioners need to be able to retire and I think uh, being able to get some returns for that system is not a problem. Uh, but what I do think is the problem though is also considering with the 2% management fees, I mean look, if you're a tiny fund manager it's not going to be that much. But if you're BlackRock the amounts are crazy. And this precise conflict of interest that we have between the fund managers and the investors. Of course, John Bogle used to talk about this all the time and that was part of the reason why he invented um, basically uh, the index fund. I mean he was trying to create a financial product that via this kind of passive tracking of the stock market, that it could make the fees cheap enough that it would essentially drive them practically down to zero. This has succeeded. I mean, I believe there are some prudential, uh, index funds that literally have zero fees as a loss leader, granted. And of course, when people originally heard the idea of this kind of uh, the index fund with low fees, I mean they called it Bogle's Folly. Right?

Servane Mouazan: Bogle's Folly.

Melanie Rieback: Bogle's Folly. Yeah. But yeah, I mean, bogle's folly indeed. Right. I mean passive investment index funds and their superset ETFs are now 35%, uh, of all investment, uh, globally. And of course, Vanguard uh, is now one of the big three asset managers. So I mean clearly uh, he had the last laugh. But what this demonstrates though is the whole concept of sort of almost nonprofit finance actually uh, has quite a storied legacy. It's not to say that Vanguard didn't get submission drift in the years since. I mean, it remains a commercial company. And that's also, I think, uh, in part the problem. You can also have founders that have really great intentions, but oftentimes if things are not locked in with legal belts and braces when they hand things off to the next generation, um, mission drift can be introduced. Servane Mouazan: And that's how you avoided Mission Drift in your own company, by putting some quite strict terms in place, right? Melanie?

Melanie Rieback: Yeah, well I mean I think that the uh, belts and braces that we need the majority of the time, uh, is called steward ownership. So basically doing things like foundation ownership, um, my company certainly is using this. I mean a very long time ago, I basically gave my company away for €1 to a foundation. M. And another thing is we also donate 90% of our profits to charity. We are registered as something called a fiscal fundraising institution, which is kind of a Dutch tax, uh, construction from the church, uh, which long story short, kind of forces companies to donate 90% or more of their profits to a certified charity. Yeah, so basically we have been operating this way for quite a long time. I think another essential component is something called a golden share, uh, which is something that can prevent uh, the company from being sold. It's a kind of poison pill, like a veto that can prevent directors, um, or the board uh, from selling the company. Uh, why would you do this? Of course, if you talk about preventing exits from happening, this already I think, gets the majority of the finance industry confused because exits are everything.

Servane Mouazan: That's what the queasiness mention was about earlier on in the recording.

Melanie Rieback: And what are we doing this for exactly? I mean, finance, along with business, is human organization. We're moving resources around to ensure that things that society needs can happen. Uh, most of the people in the finance industry already realize that finance is a good servant, but not a good master. And things have already m moved in this direction, of course. Um, but I think that if we can implement our funds, for example, using steward ownership foundation owned funds this sounds really crazy, busome fund managers are doing this. Uh, if you consider, for example, the Purpose Foundation in Germany and Purpose Ventures, I mean, they have uh, basically um, one startup fund, one seed fund, and one growth fund. And, uh, both of them are applying these principles of steward ownership to the funds themselves, uh, to basically ensure that, really, the only fees that are getting taken out of this whole vehicle are just what's required to operate the fund, assuminmiddle-classss salaries and a pension and everything above and beyond that gets recycled back into the fund. So the fund can actually focus on what it really is intended to do, which is in this particular case, stimulating impact businesses. Uh, same thing also witSnowballll. Uh, impact management, uh, in London. Uh, from Daniela. Baroni Suarez. She also same thing foundation, uh, owned fund. Uh, she also took the 220 and she also reformed it. She got rid of the 20%, carried interest and uh, changed the 2% into the cost of running the business. Assuminmiddle-classss salaries and a pension. Uh, she basically created not-for-profitit investment fund very similarly to the way that I made radically open security, also not-for-profitit cybersecurity company. And what we understand is these fund managers are thought leaders because this is what we really need to be doing with oufinancesce. And I don't believe that everyone is going to immediately, um, be convincible, uh, to move in this direction because of course, as things are right now, there's so many vested interests and again, there's a certain standard of living that people are used to that they're not necessarily willing to give up yet. Look, uh, let's be pragmatic here. Right now there's only a handful of these kinds of examples and I think we need many more of them. And even well-establisheded, established fund manager has very little to lose by starting a small experimental fund on the side that just experiments with governance structures and incentives. If they want to continue running all the rest of their financially extractive funds, uh, the way they have been, fine. But at least just try it. It's called thought leadership. You don't have to sacrifice that much. But what we at least need are more role models. Because once we can start seeing more of these role models pop up a few things will happen. I mean fir,st it will start that discussion about incentives and compensation structures that so badly needs to happen. And we need to start shifting this over to the window of uh, what's considered acceptable and normal. We also need to start getting limited partners to understand that um, this stuff does not necessarily make things more risky. Because of course, as things are right now, anything that's new, anything that's different is automatically perceived as risky. What perplexes ,me even mo,re is if you talk about reforming fees, like getting rid of the 20% carried interest very quickly, they will start talking about incentive misalignment, which completely perplexes me because like, hello, you want to pay more fees. I uh, mean a greedy fund manager is not necessarily going to get better results. And anyhow 90% of fund managers as it is, or at least with VCs, fail to keep pace with the stock market. I mean, they can't compete with an index fund. So I think that uh, given the fact that pension money anyhow, is going to sort of build the world that we're going to live in, especially the institutional investors need to start understanding that with great power comes great responsibility. And as much as pensioners, of course, do want the returns, which oftentimes anyway, they're practically getting, not getting. But uh, there are also multiple ways to interpret fiduciary responsibility. On top of that, I mean, what good is multiplying returns of som18-year-oldld uh, with a job when we're also busy ruining that same world, uh, that th18-year-oldld is going to inher?t. And look, uh, I'm not saying though, that you're going to get less returns by non-extractiveve vehicle. I think it's exactly the opposite. Low feemeanns more for the limited partners. I mean, there's nothing to dislike about this. It's the fund manager that's making the sacrifice, not the LPs. The other thing also is that you're reducing the conflict of interest between the GPS and the LPs and uh, that is derisking the whole thing. So basically what this means is betterisk-adjusteded returns.

Servane Mouazan: Thank you so much. What I've heard is like you're sharing some punk, wise and audacious. By punk, as in you question whatever is happening here, wise is: you’re showing the way. And Audacious, I would say, well, you got to step out. So, great call to action. And I hope these ideas and these models could uh, help germinate more action in the investment sector across the spectrum, especially if we are to lean into post-growthth world. So I wonder if there's any more that you encourage or invite the investing community to think about to step up to the systemic challenges we're facing as a word of closure for our time together.

Melanie Rieback: Yeah, I think there's a lot of different roles that people can play depending on what position they're in. I think if people are um, again, GPS step up and be entrepreneurial. If you're a high net worth individual, understand that, uh, you might have more control over your money and what you can do with this money than some other people. So use that to be able to support these kinds of small fund managerwhoat are doing nontraditional things. Because your participation also helps to crowd in, uh, others, because you're also, in part, derisking it. Also, for uh, larger players, we need to get at least one of these experimental fund managers, uh, to a billion, uh, because they all have thichicken-egggg problem that as long as they're below this, they are not taken seriously. Uh, and they're perceived as being too risky. And it's just the psychological barrier that I think a lot of limited partners, anyhow, have, not to mention with diversification rules. So that's another thing I think we also need to consider also for the institutionals, uh, what, uh, sort of systemic factors are also preventing them from uh, supporting the creation of such an ecosystem. I think we need to look at uh, board members. Where are they coming from? How are they getting sourced? Is there enough diversity? Uh, and I'm not just talkinabout g gender diversity or age diversity, but also just in general, diversity of thought. Other questions like, how are these board members being trained? I mean, we're sending them all to INSEAD, and that's great, but uh, we need also some other uh, places where they can also learn about alternative economics and other forms of uh well, other alternative approaches. And there also need to be service providers, uh, uh, that can provide these educations. This is also a call to entrepreneurship, uh, in terms of sourcing and recruiting. We need recruiting companies, uh, that can step up, uh, to this challenge of providing these kinds of alternative board members. I think also we need to uh, consider other things. Like if you're at a pension fund, let's consider procurement, uh, criteria for asset managers. Because asset managers are also the ones that are engaging the companies. And oftentimes that engagement is incredibly ineffective. It's just frequently checkbox-tickingng exercise. Like, did we send them a letter? Yes, we sent them a letter. But come on, we can do better than this.

Servane Mouazan: Much better.

Melanie Rieback: I mean, we need to actually make space for these smaller fund managers to be able to get a foothold. But part of it starts indeed, with procurement criteria and compliance. And another part of it also requires looking at uh, due diligence. Because why is it that you would give the uh, assignment in the end, to a BlackRock and not to a trio dose, for example? I mean, frequently, I think Triodos is just too small, um, with the perceived risk, uh, that comes with this. And I think also that in many capacities, just the due diligence criterion already crosses them off the list. But why, right? I mean, could it be actually, th?t. Our compliance rules are so strict that we're preventing innovations from happening because having a more social ecosystem where we also are reducing conflicts of interest, uh, also, uh, or we can get more meaningful engagement with better intentions. This is better for everyone. I mean, good governance matters and good stewardship matters, but, uh, this requires pioneering, and I think also getting those in institutional investors to understand that they are in a position where they can do this innovation. And we need to look at the compensation structures also of those fund managers, uh, to also make sure that they're not getting compensated foshort-termrm gains. And yet there's also so little transparency, uh, also surrounding, uh, compensation, uh, also within these institutional investors. So, really, I think what we have for those that are outside of the finance industry, we need lawsuits, because we also need really great jurisprudence, particularly on topics like fiduciary responsibility. And I can point you also to wonderful lawsuits, uh, like, uh, James McRitchie and, uh, Shareholder Commons in their lawsuit, uh, against Meta that are basically suing you, uh, know, basically messing around with democracy is bad for their, uh, returns as a universal shareholder.

Servane Mouazan: Yeah, that's the least they could do. Yes. Wow. So Melanie, thank you so much for giving us a great call to action, to an army of companies, entrepreneurs, institutional legal recruiters, investors, LP, fund managers, everybody, to just wake up, jump in the boots, and go and march, because there's a lot of work to do. It was hard to cram all this goodness in such a small podcast. Thank you so much for being with us. And I strongly encourage you all to watch the post-growth entrepreneurship course on YouTube, which we, as well, frustratingly, can't cram into this short time together. We'll leave the link in the notes now. We look forward to welcoming you back to the House of Trust again. Don't miss the next episode and also look back to the previous episodes. Melanie just mentioned Daniela Barone Soares from Snowball. She was also a guest on this episode. And there's a nice one on governance. There's a dance of governance that you can listen to with, uh, Karen Leigh Anderson. It was also in one of our previous episodes. And you see, all of this is forming a canvas where you can make sense of what's, uh, available in the sector, but also what we can do actively to change and to have more agency as well. So subscribe to the show. Anywhere you can find your favourite podcast, share it, review it, it’s enormously helpful. For more insights and opportunities to think independently for yourself and, uh, as yourself and explore meaningful and impactful futures, head to my website,, or start a conversation with us all on social media. I really look forward to, having this conversation with you all, people who love to invest in social and environmental change. Melanie, it was a pleasure having you today. Thank you so much for coming.

Melanie Rieback: Thank you as well for the invite and bye.

Servane Mouazan: bye

Contact Us

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Not readable? Change text. captcha txt