Hugues --

Thank you for your work on this -- I couldn't agree more that supply chain issues deserve to be raised on analyst calls, and I wish awareness-raising wasn't necessary. I do think that the returns to good behavior are indirect, but material. As I wrote to Rob below, a business is durable in a different way if it's cracked the code on sourcing ethically and sustainably. I am a big believer in the "natural carrot" that comes from good behavior.

I think you made a very provocative statement by raising the short-termism point -- I hear that a lot. One of the interesting things i've been having trouble on there, though, is the ideal response from the issuer. It's certainly not the case that shareholders are uniformly short term oriented. If anything, there are plenty of instances where the inverse is the case: there's this car company with a reasonably well-documented appetite for cash [https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/tsla/financials/cash-flow] that seemingly has no trouble financing radical long term plans. With multiples where they are at least in the US, the marginal buyer of shares has a long time horizon by mathematical identity.

So I wonder if there is anything better than an oblique response [https://www.johnkay.com/2004/01/17/obliquity/] to the challenge of short termism. A clear strategic identity isn't a linear solution to "our shareholders don't give us the time horizon we need," but it's a heck of a start. Any reasonable long term strategy for a company that sources things will include approaches to doing that well and ethically, especially given the payback period considerations above.

In any case, there is tremendous momentum towards the mainstream integration of these sorts of non-financial criteria in investment decision making. I look forward to talking about the natural carrot coming from good behavior in the future and getting a response along the lines of "no duh."

Cheers, and all the best --

Will