Episode 15: Signal vs. Noise: MIT’s Jason Jay on the Four Lenses for Board-Level Sustainability

As experts gather in Berlin and Brussels to debate climate policy, MIT Sloan’s Jason Jay joins Inside CVC to cut through the ESG noise. He introduces the Four Lenses Framework, showing how boards can focus on what matters, align purpose with business value, and invest for long-term impact.

You’ll hear:

• How to separate signal from noise in ESG
• Why short-termism blocks real progress
• How cross-industry coalitions can drive systems change
• Practical ways leaders can turn sustainability into strategy

 The CVC Open Innovation Summit Europe takes place November 25–26 in Berlin, during AsiaBerlin Innovation Week. Positioned as a bridge between Europe, the U.S., and Asia’s fast-growing ecosystems, the summit is a curated, invitation-only forum for senior leaders to tackle the issues shaping innovation: AI, geopolitics, energy resilience, health, sustainability, and more. Listeners are invited to request an invitation at cvc-summit.com → E

Support the show

Catch up on all episodes of Inside CVC at www.u-path.com/podcast.

Transcript

Steve: 0:04

Welcome to Inside CVC, the podcast that brings together leaders in innovation and capital investment to explore the trends shaping the business of corporate venture capital. I'm your host, Steve Smith, and together with Philip Willigman, we're speaking to corporate investors, entrepreneurs, and ecosystem builders driving the future of innovation. Inside CVC is brought to you by UPath Advisors, helping corporations and startups unlock sustainable growth through strategic partnerships. To learn And to catch up on all of our episodes, search InsideCVC on your favorite podcast platform or visit upath.com forward slash podcast. As experts gather in Berlin and Brussels in the coming weeks to discuss climate change and the future of sustainability, today's conversation couldn't be more timely. We're joined by Jason Jay, senior lecturer at MIT Sloan and director of Sustainability Initiative. Jason introduces us to his four lenses framework, a way for boards and executives to focus on what truly matters, cut through the political noise, and anchor sustainability as a driver of long-term value. He also shares insights from his book, Breaking Through Gridlock, exploring how leaders can spark constructive dialogue and real change in a polarized world. Here's our conversation with Jason Jay. Jason, thank you so much for joining us today on Inside CVC. How are you, sir?

Jason: 1:40

Doing well. Great to be here.

Steve: 1:41

Thank you for being here. Appreciate you taking a few minutes out of your busy schedule. Why don't we hop right in? Talk to us a little bit about the four lenses framework, if you will. Describe what it is and perhaps why it's so important at this time in business and corporate culture. Sure.

Jason: 1:58

If we think about sustainability as this big holistic concept, which sometimes gets talked about as ESG, there is a dizzying array of topics that we might fold under that larger umbrella. If you look at the UN Sustainable Development Goals, there's 17 goals with dozens of indicators underneath. Same thing with the IRIS, same thing with Donated Economics. My colleagues at MIT, when they were looking at ESG rating agencies and the different metrics that companies were being evaluated on, their typology had 64 different attributes from animal welfare to water and waste. And so there's a real challenge of focus, strategic focus for companies in that complex landscape is because on the one hand, you want to have this holistic view. But on the other hand, if you're going to really seriously innovate, and you're going to invest in the kind of collaboration, the kind of innovation that it takes to meaningfully drive sustainability. You can't do that about 64 issues. You can't even do that about the 21 or 15 issues that you might report about in your sustainability report. We did a quick look and on average companies specify 11 issues as highly material. You've got to even get tighter in your focus if you're going to really invest for the long term in strategic innovation. And so our attempt with the four lenses framework was to give a tool to help companies companies explore the full range of things, but then zoom in and narrow down on a very small set of key sustainability strategy priorities within which they could really lead. And that means engaging with others in partnerships, investing in innovation, and really driving systemic change.

Steve: 3:47

Let me ask you, we've had some guests on the show and this topic has come up in terms of, but in a had J. Carl Ganter on the show, and he started really with looking at water sustainability, et cetera, and where companies are making decisions in areas like data centers and putting those areas where there is water scarcity, water, no water at all, future no water, and looking at it from a risk perspective. In that conversation, I asked him, hey, CSG, ESG, et cetera, sustainability, where is that falling today on corporate agendas given the dialogue around And he actually said it's, in his point of view, it's fallen down a little bit in boards of directors sort of list of priorities. What's your point of view on this? Certainly from a strategic perspective, what you're describing, I think nobody, nobody can argue about or nobody can debate. But in terms of priorities, how, where is that you think on your agenda of boards these days? It's a great

Jason: 4:51

question. The way that we think about this is that there's the signal and there's the noise. And there's a lot of noise around the politics of ESG. You have investor coalitions forming and dissolving. You have public policies advancing and pulling back. You had what seemed like a pretty steady push of the European Union on regulations. They're sort of pulling back. So there's some noise at that policy institutional level, and there's some noise at the market signals level of what investors are asking for. I think there's some deeper signal beneath the noise, which are the fundamental environmental issues and natural resource constraints and economic inequalities, which are driving the risks that we face, the opportunities that we face, and that companies would do well to pay attention to. So some companies who are well-tuned to those fundamental drivers are staying the course, right? I mean, if we think about agriculture companies, you can't not pay attention to climate change and the physical impacts on agricultural productivity. Insurance companies in the property and catastrophe business can't not pay attention to the increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires. That's their primary concern. Costco understands that they are fundamentally a human-driven business, that their whole value depends on having highly productive relationships with their employees that create phenomenal customer experience, they've not backed down on DEI or on any of their people strategies because they understand that those are fundamental drivers for their business. And so I think what the four lenses framework tries to do. So one of the lenses is essentially what are people asking? What are people asking us for? What are people yelling about? It's that stakeholder lens. That's one of the lenses. You have to sort of listen to that. But the other lenses are really designed to get to the signal beneath the noise, right? Which is What does the science tell us are critical risks and opportunities? What does our sense of purpose and who we are that we were formed for, how does that guide us? And what are the basic drivers of business value and the economics of our business that make something meaningful to work on? So I think there are some issues that have slipped off the board agenda or slipped off the C-suite agenda because they were only there because of that stakeholder lens. They were only there because somebody was asking for it, someone was yelling about it. And if the discourse has shifted, or the political winds have shifted, then it's going to fall off the thing. But where there was a real reason... i.e. there's fundamental interdependencies of our business on natural resources, like the water to cooler data centers, or the stable climate to grow our crops, or there's a deep sense of purpose that's going to be our North Star regardless, then they're going to stay. The other thing I would say is that there's a certain amount of, depending on those tides of stakeholder desires and demands, you get more greenwashing or green hushing. So when there's a lot of demand for people to sign up for stuff, Glasgow Financial Alliance for net zero, everybody's signing up for net zero targets, and you get a bunch of greenwashing. I get phone calls saying, so we just signed up for a net zero target. Can you tell me what that is? And then now you have the opposite phenomenon, which is the green hushing, which is like, I don't want to be too verbal about this and draw the ire of the Trump administration or something, but I know that there's a fundamental reason for us to work on this. So we're going to stay the course. We might decentralize it, right? Like MIT did. We don't have a central DEI office. We decentralized DEI to the schools, the departments, labs, and centers, which is exactly where you actually make personnel choices. So that makes sense, but it removes the attack surface. So I think that's the way I would tend to look at the moment that we're in.

Philipp: 10:41

Jason, pleasure having you on the show We met a couple of years back when I was at Vontir and was looking for some guidance on how can you connect sustainability to enterprise value. Because at Vontir, one of the North Stars was that we wanted to be one of the most sustainable companies and transforming from being one of the leaders in providing gas station technology and solutions, doing the same thing in the climate and the green electronic EV space. And you came in as an advisor. I remember when we walked into MIT with our whole leadership team and the board, you gave a great overview on how you can actually connect sustainability to driving more enterprise value. And I would love for you to share with our audience, what do Fortune 1000 CEOs and boards have to think about? How can they strategically really leverage the four lenses framework? And how can you drive enterprise value by focusing on sustainability? sustainability and also attracting talent and really driving much more value than focusing on the old times.

Jason: 11:50

So I think this is a little bit of a tricky topic because there are clearly certain opportunities that are financially profitable, that advance enterprise value, that are working on sustainability, right? And this goes back to the value drivers that Dan Esty and Andrew Winston identified in in green to gold, where you can reduce costs through optimizing your trucking routes or you're installing various different kinds of energy-saving devices. You can mitigate your risks by getting on top of both social license to operate and physical disruptions in your supply chain. You can get on top of marketing trends and the ability to capture customers based on changing preferences and interests in healthy organic food in electric vehicles and so on. And you can build intangible value for the enterprise through sort of prolonged, sustained corporate citizenship. So, I mean, those value drivers, I think, are maintained. I think the trick is, the tension here is that you do have to maintain a long-term perspective. Most sustainability efforts require some kind of upfront investment with a payoff over time. And so, Yeah, absolutely. from an external nutrient system to a locally regenerated nutrient system. And there's a return on that investment, but it takes a little bit of time. Same thing with infrastructure to make overhaul a building and make it energy efficient. So I think the first thing, the step zero, is to get a planning window that's a little longer than most companies think about. And I think that is a persistent challenge. that I don't want to gloss over. And I think it's a barrier to all kinds of research and development investment. It's a barrier to corporate venture capital with the space that you work in. It's a barrier to a variety of different kinds of strategic investments that go beyond just sustainability. We have a major short-termism problem that I think is a root cause here. When Paul Pullman took over Unilever, one of the first things he did is he went to the shareholder meeting and And he said, I don't work for you. And Unilever generates value through customer and employee supplier relationships. Profitability is a byproduct of that. But if we start focusing on our quarterly returns, we're going to miss all of those opportunities for investment. So I'm going to stop providing quarterly guidance to analysts. And that was a controversial move. But what happened was that the mix of investors shifted from the short-term to the longer-term pension-style investors. And we see that. We see that there's research on this, that companies with strong ESG performance end up with longer-term investors in their investor mix, which gives them the breathing room to be able to think longer-term so that they can make those kinds of investments. And I think that's actually a critical leverage point. Getting toward a longer-term horizon is a of which require thinking beyond the next quarter.

Steve: 15:46

That's sort of hard enough to do as a standalone corporation. But Philip and I have been working on the future of mobility. There's been conversations around the future movement of transportation, the future of through a number of lenses. And fundamentally, those have all focused on a number of industries working together, a number of companies across industries working together. And certainly the innovation that comes from something like I'm an automotive individual and the innovation that comes from something like a connected, electrified, shared, autonomous movement of goods requires everything from public infrastructure to the actual automotive OEMs. The sustainability question is really, was a piece of the foundation of that future mobility. So my question is, if that's hard enough to do as one company, how do you do that as an ecosystem of companies and where do you see sort of the greatest value, the sort of greatest short-term value when it comes to these cross sectors working together to drive these sustainability efforts? There isn't.

Jason: 16:55

In the process of building a cross-industry collaboration or cross-sectoral collaboration, can you get quick wins on the board that show people the value of that collaboration? Some kind of peer learning, some kind of joint purchasing, some kind of co-investment in a new plant to loosen up supply constraints. There may be some near-term wins in a collaboration that is ultimately about the future of mobility or the future of food or the future of energy and And if you want any partnership or collaboration to sustain, you've got to have that mix of quick wins and then medium and then longer term gains. So on some level, yeah, you've got to figure out those quick wins. But I think it is fundamentally challenging to build and sustain coordination across an industry. And it requires staying power, which means that it requires multiple companies to see whatever you're working on as a key strategic issue. This partially comes back to the four lenses thing to say, what are the issues that are at that sweet spot where it's part of your purpose, you think there's business value, the stakeholders are asking you for it, and there's fundamental science and technological drivers that are pulling this requirement, then you're going to have the staying power to be part of that coalition. But I But I also, I recently have been worrying and wondering about whether we should expect to be successful with voluntary corporate-driven coalitions. I mean, if we look at where this is really, so where is mobility transition actually happening? It's happening in China and in the Nordics. And in both of those situations, the government is providing a critical role in coordination. The Chinese five-year plan is a coordination device that's a common reference point for all of the different entities that are involved with this simultaneous investment in battery production infrastructure, electric vehicle infrastructure, and production capacity, deployment, consumption, etc. And same thing with their renewable energy industry. And in mobility in the Nordics, the systematic set of policies and sort of coordinated industrial policy to say, look, so why is Volvo moving toward an EV transition with a hard deadline? It's part of the coordination of the kind of Nordic policy around these things. So I think that when we think about, I think we have to zoom the aperture back. I do think about corporate sustainability strategy, but I am primarily somebody who thinks about systems change and sustainability transitions in the bigger sense. I'm interested in the corporate strategy piece insofar as how do you get boards to keep their eye on the ball of what is the longer game that they're playing as part of these sustainability transitions. But the big question that we all face here is how do we actually shift the mobility system toward that, what you're describing, that autonomous, electrified, shared future, how do we shift the energy system toward a distributed and dynamic renewable storage efficiency, demand response, with the transmission capacity that can deal with that, right? How do we transition the food system to something that's more multi-trophic, seasonally responsive, regional food security, and resilient to climate disruptions? Like, each of those are system transitions. And they're transitions that require corporate behavior change, they require entrepreneurship, they require public policy, and they require the coordination, and they require shifts and consumer sentiment and behavior, which are kind of more social movement-like. And they require coordination among those things. And so the real question is, what are the coordination devices? And that's the thing that keeps me up at night. And it could be government in certain situations, China. It could be investors who provide, who create a systemic investing strategy. That's a lot of what I'm working on now is how can investors provide some of that coordination infrastructure and convenience and synchronization. But this is the big question of our time. I think we go through periods that are more coordinated and more decentralized. And we've been in a period that was relatively decentralized and it was quite lucrative in terms of building up the commercial internet ecosystem of the 90s and 2000s. But that was based on a coordinated set of investments by DARPA and others to to build the backbone of the internet before that thousands of flowers started blooming, right? And I think these sustainability transitions require a level of coordinated thinking about socio-technical transitions that most of us aren't used to thinking about that because we've got our heads down within our own individual organizations.

Philipp: 22:14

And it's also so complex to think about all these different subsystems. And if you make one change in one area, what does it really mean to the other systems? But this go back to mobility, right? You laid out what the vision of the future of mobility should look like. It's electrified, it's autonomous, it creates more opportunity for everyone. And at least Steve and myself, we know there's a lot of people out there who would buy into this vision, who say, yeah, this vision makes sense. But why is it still so difficult to even get individual organizations to say, okay, let's actually go focus on this? Or even take Germany and some of the German OEMs We're now trying to, again, make a step back to the internal combustion engine. And the other thing, I remember a convention in New York at the Clinton Global Initiative two years ago, where a CEO of a big bank essentially said, well, if you guys would be able to tell me what technology is really proven, we would be willing to inform our high net worth wealth individuals and bankers to inform the family office to invest in those. So if there is a vision, right, if we say we know the solutions which are the right one, why is it so hard to actually connect the money to the solutions and to really build towards the vision?

Jason: 23:37

I think that it has to do with incumbency. Kodak, which was the leader in film, did not take us through the digital photography revolution. Tesla was a new company that really created the EV as a commercial possibility. On some level, it's very difficult for incumbent companies to do transformative innovation. I mean, there are exceptions to the rule. IBM was able to make a transition from being a mainframe company to being a software services company. But everybody always comes back to that one example because it was so unusual, right? I think, why do OEMs want to go back to ICE vehicles that they've built their entire brand, their human capital, their identity, their infrastructure, their public policy. There is something called a socio-technical regime. So when we talk about sustainability transitions, it's very useful to think about, well, what are the big socio-technical transitions that have happened in the past? How did we get indoor plumbing? How did we go from horses to cars? And one of the insights from people who do that kind of historical work is that there's something called a socio-technical regime. And it is a set of incumbent technologies deployed by incumbent companies, supported by incumbent policies that are voted in by incumbent politicians, political parties. And if you are creating something new, a new niche of a new style of innovation, a new electric vehicle or an autonomous vehicle or something like that, you can't just drop a new technology into the existing system and hope that it's going to grow and win. You have to think about, well, what are the landscape disruptions on the regime that would get the regime even open to those innovations? And what's the constellation of things that you need to co-invest in to build the niche, not just as a technology, but as an ensemble that has some hope of becoming the new regime or morphing the existing regime to become the new regime? We created, I mean, there's so many aspects of what technological lock-in to the individually owned ICE vehicle looks like, right? From garages in our homes to the fueling stations to gas taxes that are used to fund highways. There's a whole ensemble of things that works together and it's worked really well for a while, right? And the people and the talent and the skills and the teams and the incentives, all of that have been constructed to support the existing regime. So if you want to create a new socio-technological Like a new ensemble. into a domain. It wasn't Kodak that did that, right? So Tesla is a great example in this space. Now, other companies can then mobilize to be part of this, but it's a disruption. And so it's not trivial, and I don't think companies change without significant pressure from both sides, from the competitive pressure of the new niche, of people wanting the new thing that the new provider is is bringing to the market, but also the pressure from the landscape, the pressure from public policy, from changing sentiment and things like that five-year plan in China or the groundswell of concern about climate in Northern Europe. It's only when you're really subject to pressures from both of those directions that you're going to see it.

Steve: 27:42

So interesting. I know we spent the last few minutes talking about movement of people, future mobility, and even when you mentioned a few minutes ago, reference to China and reference to the Nordic states. And I think about your four And I think about sort of electrification in the United States. I look at an issue here and I would maybe describe that one of the challenges in terms of a cultural lens. People in the United States culturally are not, you know, at least a large, large swath of the population is not culturally adopting electric vehicles where in China it's different. Right. I think you look at a political lens and that is certainly different from from country to country, I would suggest or I would believe. that if you're in the C-suite, that could create a lot of strategic gridlock, if you will, boards of directors. And so maybe I'd like to turn maybe the conversation to your book that you co-wrote with Gabriel Grant. Can you talk to us about the book Breaking Through Gridlock? What is the premise and what were you and your co-author trying to articulate in that book?

Jason: 28:51

Well, it had sort of two threads that the came together. One was our personal reflections as advocates for sustainability and what we were learning from having fallen on our faces a few times and then found our way through these sorts of difficult situations. My own experience advocating for sustainability at the MIT campus as a grad student kind of thing. But then also it was our students. So I teach MBA and executive level courses on sustainability at MIT. I've been doing that for a 15 years have seen our students going out and then trying to make change in their organizations and seeing what bumps in the road they hit and what it takes to get through them. And Gabriel, through the Byron Fellowship, trains social entrepreneurs and sort of similar landscape of experiences. And so we wanted to capture some wisdom about what does it take to be an effective advocate for issues that you really care about, right? That where your values are at stake, And you're trying to advocate for a more environmentally sustainable course of action, or you're trying to advocate for something that might be more equitable or socially just or something even more, just more innovative. And you run into opposition and how do you deal with that? And so there were things out there that were very useful. And I still am a huge fan of Getting to Yes by Fisher and Urey, which are like the classic book on negotiation is sort of, if you want to work with somebody, you've got understand what their interests are and what your interests are, and then get creative about different options that could be a win-win for that conversation. What we just noticed was that there's a step zero, which is to even be willing to entertain another person's point of view and to step out of the sort of very pleasurable self-righteousness that many of us And get to enjoy when we are kind of fighting what we think of as the good fight. And to just notice that if you really want to make progress on the issue that you care about and strengthen the relationship at the same time, you're going to have to loosen your hold on what we call the bait in the trap in the pitfalls here, which is like getting to be right and getting to be righteous and getting to be certain about your point of view or getting to be safe. among other people who all agree with you and being willing to really open up and listen to what another person has to say and to even understand what they're... A lot of times we talk about resistance to change or the opposition that we face and we just say, we get frustrated that people are just stuck in the mud and why can't they get it? And so we're focused on their opposition. We're not focused on what is their position or then what are their values? What are their interests? What do they really care about? What are they standing for? What are they afraid to lose if we move in this direction? You talked about the cultural experience of cars in the United States, right? The notion of the road trip and this notion of the frontier, this idea that at any time I'm going to grab the kids and we're going to pile in the car and we're going to have out west right and we're going to drive into as far as we want to go and you know that and we're not going to run into any range anxiety and we're not going to so the idea that I might have to the idea that my car might not get me more than 300 miles before I need a charging station and and then I need to make sure that every 300 miles along this route there's going to be a charging station maybe I'm afraid of losing that sense of stability that sense of freedom and And if we don't understand that as an emotional experience and attend to it and really honor it and just say, you're bad because you're burning fossil fuels in your big car that you're trying to take on a road trip, we're not going to get anywhere. And so it's really listening for what people value that you may have undervalued and then getting creative and thinking together about ways to solve those problems together. manage the environmental footprint of this and have that freedom and so on. And that, that innovation leads, that tension leads us to that trade-off that leads us to want to break those trade-offs. And it leads us to innovation. It leads us to extending the range of our vehicles, to figuring out clever ways to get charging stations along all the major highway corridors. It means making, helping people understand the sort of power and fun of a high torque electric motor and, So it's those sorts of things, I think, that we learn how to do is how can we go from, I'm here to tell you what you want and tell you what you should do, to I'm here to listen and help and see how we can create a pathway forward here. And in a polarized world, that gets harder and harder, but that's exactly the sort of gesture that we think was required.

Philipp: 34:19

Thank you, Jason. And I mean, the book really provides some great examples on how you can change the narrative. How can you actually create a communication framework to start this transformation? Can you maybe share with our audience an example of a company out of the Fortune 1000 or a couple of corporates who are kind of currently really setting a new standard when it comes to sustainable innovation and investments and share some transferable best practices so that our audience can go back to the book, of it, but also have something to think about when they listen to the audience and bring it directly into execution.

Jason: 35:03

It's a tough one for me because I do tend to think in this mindset of the deep transitions that are required and this idea that if you're in the Fortune 1000, it's because you're probably part of the existing regime. So where do we see both of those things happening? at the same time. There's a Brazilian company called Natura, which is super interesting. They are a personal care products company, shampoos, soaps, cosmetics, things like that. They have been, from a business perspective, they've been extremely successful. They've had revenue and EBITDA growth that's been very good. And I think what's really interesting about them is that they really understand the success of the company as being deeply interdependent on a set of reciprocal relationships with the earth, with their people, who are women entrepreneurs that they invest in to go and sell the product to their customers who are using this for kind of their personal well-being. They do some really interesting work on what's called agroecology in the Amazon region where they're able to get some of the fundamental ingredients that they need from trees that are woven into the forest landscape. So they're preserving the Amazon along with their whole process of cultivation of their ingredients. And recently they've started to identify that what they're trying to do is support a paradigm shift toward a regenerative company, a regenerative value chain, a regenerative economy, and trying to be examples of that. And that means that they are looking beyond their walls. So they're joining in multiple different kinds of partnerships aimed at valuing nature, things like the Science-Based Targets Network, at preserving the Amazon and the the communities, both the human and non-human communities there, and figuring out ways to... They've lowered their absolute carbon footprint while growing the business, which is a tricky thing to do. A lot of companies sort of fall back on that and just start, they only report on relative metrics. So I think they're walking the talk in a really significant way. I think they're working to be an exemplar. I think, interestingly, they were founded by They were privately held for a really long time. The families that have built their wealth through owning Natura have become leading philanthropists and impact investors in Brazil. And so there's an ensemble of activities that are synergistic with Natura as a business model. So if we think about that wider context that they're operating in, that socio-technical regime in a way, there's a bigger picture there. So I think that's an interesting example. The kind of innovation that they're doing has to do with how do you produce all of the capabilities of good personal care products without chemicals that are toxic or harmful, and figuring out ways to transform the packaging, of course, figuring out ways to reduce their emissions, things like that. So I think of them as a company that has gotten to a good level of market scale and success. Jason,

Steve: 38:56

thank you so much. I think we've covered a lot of ground in our time together, not only through the four lenses, but also how corporate leaders break through that with breaking through gridlock. Appreciate you taking a few minutes joining us today. Such a fascinating conversation. I personally think we could talk another hour about this. Easily, yes. Hopefully we have that opportunity to talk deeper about these things in the future. Thanks so much for joining us.

Philipp: 39:23

Yeah, appreciate it. Appreciate it. Thanks so much for having me. Thank you, Jason, for coming on. And I hope you can join us on the next CVC Open Innovation Summit, either in Europe or the US. Thanks for your time. And yeah, look forward to more conversations like this. Cheers.

Steve: 39:42

That's it for today's conversation with Jason Jay. His insights on separating signal from noise, focusing on long-term value, and driving systems change through sustainability couldn't be more timely. As global leaders meet in Berlin and Brussels to discuss the future of climate policy, Jason reminds us that real progress comes when boards and executives sharpen strategy, stay the focus, and see sustainability as a foundation for innovation. Inside CVC is brought to you by UPath Advisors, helping corporations and startups unlock sustainable growth through strategic partnerships. To learn more, visit upath.com. That's the letter U hyphen path dot com. And to catch up on all of our episodes, search Inside CVC on your favorite podcast platform or visit upath.com forward slash podcast. As always, thanks for listening. We'll see you next time.