 Welcome. Did the coronavirus just crush all hopes of a fairer world, or is this the perfect chance for a great reset? This is the Global World Economic Forum's Jobs Reset Summit. So far we've had three days of visionary leaders debating from the words of business, government, civil society and the media, reshaping growth, jobs and skills with the main topics of the last few days. Today, equity, inclusion and social justice. Our guests are McKinsey's Kevin Sneeder, Ashley Shelby Rosette from the Frequent School of Business, and Laura Thompson from the International Organization for Migration, as well as Fumzilla Mlambo Nunguka from UN Women. She'll be joining the conversation a little later in the show. I'm Ben Fazulin for those who can't spell that F-A-J-Z-U-L-L-I-N. It's a tricky one. I've been spelling it all my life. It's not an easy one. I get checked at almost every second airport for explosives. But it's nothing to match the anxiety of growing up as a gay man. That was very difficult in the Australian media landscape. It changed very much when I came to Germany and it's changing every day. But for a lot of minorities, the world hasn't changed enough, especially in the workforce. And a second lockdown is now here. Corona is putting a lot of the development and progression back into reverse. It's something I'd like to ask Kevin Sneeder about. Is it within this contracting economy harder or easier to embed social justice? Well, I think the reality is if we think there's a reset and the need to hit a reset button, maybe we should also be hitting the panic button because we've reached this moment in time where so many forces have come together that a more fundamental question has to be asked, which is, are we now at a point where if we don't do something, the society cohesion that we think is so important to progress is going to be lost? And I think the answer to that question is yes, we've reached that moment. There are so many numbers, Ben, that point to that reality, whether it's in gender, social justice, and many other aspects of equality. Let me just give you a few and put them in the context of the pandemic. Because arguably there actually had been real progress. You talk about what you had seen personally in Germany and other parts of the world. And I think we could point to some numbers. In gender, we could certainly point to progress. And in race, we could point to slow but meaningful progress. Income inequality gaps beginning to close. However, the pandemic really has been a moment of reset. And the answer why? Because it has disproportionately impacted those who are most vulnerable to it. And they often are the minority groups. In fact, it's intersections, the places where different types of minority experience come together. We see that most profoundly. Let me just offer a few numbers. Black women are three times more likely than white women to report the death of a loved one as a top priority in this crisis. That's another aspect of the fact that we know the mortality rate has been higher in the black population. Black women are twice as likely than other women to say they do not have strong allies in the workplace to help them in this moment. And one in three have considered leaving the workforce completely in this moment on the back of the pandemic. Those numbers are in the United States. Frankly, it gets even worse in other countries. And that's why I think we talk about reset. But I think we need to add to reset a real sense of urgency, an emergency, a panic moment, a moment when the progress that has been made could go backwards. I could go on, but I know in the interest of time, let me just answer your question. It doesn't have to be a negative moment, though. There is still time to respond. There is a moment when we could realize that actually flexibility, the opportunity to rethink the progression in careers, the chance to use this moment when there is a lot of stimulus and support being injected into economies to target it in a way which addresses some of these injustices and inequalities. That's there too. And I haven't even begun to tackle the topic of the type of injustice that we saw come to fore on the back of the killing of George Floyd and other incidents around the world. But let me stop there. I know there's a lot to cover in this session. Well, actually, let's stay in the US and pick up on those numbers. What sort of gaps are there? There's a lot missing as far as minorities and ethnicities go and when it comes to policymaking. I mean, a bunch of white guys write the code when it comes to tech and tech could have been so unbiased, but it doesn't look like that's the way it's going. What are some of the gaps in data and findings? Yeah, I think building very much on what Kevin has described then is that when we look at the gaps, what we have to fundamentally look at is the data. So when we look at the data, we think about the way in which we have to disaggregate the data, the way in which we have to have to interpret that data and making that data availability in order to see some change in the reset that we would like to see. So one of the stats that's oftentimes quoted in the United States, probably the most popular one, is the notion of the unemployment rate, the jobs rate. People anticipate this rate every month. So back in February, that rate was around 3%. In April, it was around 16%. Recently, it's been around 8%. But if we start to disaggregate that number, we look and see what's that unemployment rate for blacks versus whites. For blacks, it's around 13%. For whites, it's around 6%. If we disaggregate it even more and add an intersectional lens that is encompassing both race, gender, and age, we see that young black women, again, building off the stat that Kevin mentioned, young black women have an unemployment rate in the United States of 25%. That fundamentally says that when a black woman is looking for a job, she's experiencing something very different than is a white man. And if we attempt to try to dismantle and address this inequality with a sweeping brush that's the same for all, it's not likely going to result in the change that we would like to see. So number one, we have to consider the aspect of disaggregating this data and looking at it at a more granular level in order to try to adjust some of the change. Number two, we want to consider that how exactly are we interpreting this data? Again, recognizing those fundamental distinctions and acknowledging that these experiences are embedded in larger systems and larger structures that we have to address. So if we talk about the research, we know that, for example, whites are more likely to be called back for a job even when they have a criminal record, more so than our blacks. We know that resumes with white-sounding names are more likely to be called in for interviews than our blacks. We know that blacks are actually encouraged to whiten their resumes in order to get jobs. Once in the organizations, we know that if you choose to advocate for the diversity, that there can be serious repercussions in terms of perceptions of competence with regards to blacks and women, but women, but very little with regards to white and men. And we also know that fundamentally, and this is speaking from my own research, that there exists this aspect of a white standard of leadership. And what does that do to the aspect of not just getting into the organization but matriculating up the organization? And the third aspect I'd probably say when we talk about data and gaps of research is the availability of the data. That is, we don't know what's happening inside the organizations because the organizations don't make that data available. We have seen, you mentioned tech, right? We have seen some advances over the last few years in terms of transparency with these various diversity reports in tech, but that's been a very, very small example. We saw recently, Price Boardhouse Pupers also chose to have a diversity report. But we're going to understand what's happening in these organizations and try to adjust, to try to influence this inequity. We have to know, one, what are the numbers? And two, what are the organizations doing and whether or not what they're doing is actually working. Like Kevin, I could talk on and on and on, but I think I'll just kind of leave it there for now and see what questions are posed. I like the fact that we're talking data, but what about tech and what about people with disabilities? They've often been pioneer users in that sector. Do they hold the key to some of these answers here? Ashley, maybe you can answer that. I'm sorry, in terms of disability and... For people with disabilities, they're often being pioneer users in tech and using programs that a lot of other people would never have needed to use or come across. Could they hold the key in some ways to finding solutions to see that we see equity put at the center of policymaking? Yeah, I think we know that whenever we attempt to try to resolve disparity in considering marginalized communities, it causes a certain level of innovation. It causes us to think in ways that we have not necessarily previously needed to think of. And so previously needed to think. And I think that can be a source of trying to incorporate and be more inclusive in our processes that we have in our organizations to help minimize these inequities. But as you mentioned, then we have to have a willingness to start to address these marginalized communities. I think we have a willingness to address things like disability because people fundamentally agree on that. When it comes to things like race and gender, those are a little bit more difficult. So I think it can be an in-road, but it's not an ending, if you will, because of the way in which the distinction in terms of how we look at disability versus race versus gender, versus religion, versus, you know, all the other disparities that we have. So a beginning, but definitely not an ending. I'd like to bring in Laura Thompson now from the International Organization for Migration. Laura, what signs of change are there that this moment of flux that we're talking about could actually be used to proactively embed a greater equity in the new economy when it comes to migration, which is the field you work in? I think we have to look a little bit to what the pandemic has brought to migrants, and I would say there are two signs of it as everything in life. One part is the negative side, and obviously there is a loss of jobs that has been extremely important for migrants, particularly those that were undocumented. Reduction in remittances is another big part with some of the places even going to half of the remittances that they were sending in the past, like in Central America. Thousands of people that were stranded in the middle between transient countries or some of them in the destination countries that were not able to return. They didn't have enough funds to cover their state. And other type of things like anti-migrant sentiment, xenophobia, and this type of reactions. On the other side, there have been a lot of very positive aspects as well, because very quickly governments realized that migrants were part of the solution to this pandemic. And these applied in two main sectors. First of all, in the health sector, where they saw that there is a huge amount of doctors and nurses that are foreigners and that are serving in developed countries particularly, and that were very present in the response to the pandemic. But the other side was the agriculture and distribution supply chain sectors where again migrants were predominant. So there were a number of, I would say, innovative measures that were taken by a number of governments that are quite positive and I think open a good opportunity. Now I see two or three opportunities that are going to be very important for the future. The first one is global health for everybody. This crisis has shown that providing access to health to migrants, including the undocumented migrants, is not a generosity, but it's a total need if everybody wants to be safe. So that is extremely important. The second element that I see as a very important element is that this crisis could have been the beginning of a change in the discourse about migrants and the negative perception about it because it has shown the positive contribution that they make, but also with regard to skills. Very often we talk about high skilled people are welcome but the lowest skilled people are not welcome, and this crisis has shown that the lowest skilled people are important too. And the third element that I will bring that I think is going to be quite innovative in the future is the possibility of thinking about the labor market and how this virtual reality that we have created the capacity to work is going to have an impact in the labor market, whether we are going to begin talking seriously about virtual labor migration and how governments will need to adapt in order to allow that in a much easier way. Joining the conversation now is Fumzilla Mlambo-Guka from UN Women. Fumzilla, tell me just how badly has this pandemic exacerbated inequalities? Can you hear me? I can. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Well, women are disproportionately affected by this pandemic, and there are really three ways that we have identified as particularly concerning noting that there is no crisis that is gender neutral. We've learned from previous crisis, the Ziga, the Ebola crisis also showed us the gender dimension of these crisis. And Ebola, for instance, the restriction of the mobility of women severely affected their livelihoods. And in this pandemic, we have seen that we saw that men were able to recover after the pandemic and go to pre-pandemic level of economic activity. But for many women, they lost everything without insurance and capacity to recover. And of course, women are also in insecure employment, mostly informal, and that does not give them some of the cushioning that you are able to have when you have a formal employment. Women are also overrepresented in the hard-hit sectors of the economy, such as tourism, hospitality, and the service sector. And thirdly, the crisis of unpaid care. Women's unpaid care in families and communities has been too long taken for granted, but in this crisis, it reached a new high. And one of the biggest takeaways from this crisis that we should all work for is that we should have proper policies to reduce unpaid care on women, to remunerate it and to redistribute it. Whether it is through parental care, it is still accessible and affordable childcare, we need to make sure that we do not have this sustained cushioning of the economies through free labor of women that is not recognized. So women are taking much harder to recover, because if there isn't a second way of dealing with unpaid care, they are unable to be ready for the labor markets again. We are hoping that both privates and public sector will be seized with finding a way out for the women so that we can build back better for women as well. Thank you. What is the way out? What's your advice to women who've pulled themselves out of work, out of jobs, to care for kids, to look after households? How can they get back into work if that's what they want to do? Well, it's not about women having to do this just by themselves. This has to be a partnership with the other stakeholders who have the adequate authority and resources to intervene. And one of the ways is indeed addressing the social, through social protection, so that we allow for women to be in transit to a better and a more liveable life. But also the fiscal stimulus that many governments have announced needs to target women much better and to make sure that going forward women do not go back to the pre-pandemic levels of informality that makes them non-beneficiaries of interventions by government. From what we know at this point is that less than 18% of what is available in the massive fiscal stimulus that are there is targeted and is likely to reach women. And yet women are amongst the majority of those who will be unemployed. The ILO estimates that about 500 million women will be out of jobs and many of them, not unless there is intervention, they will never be able to go back to a normal working life. Let me bring up then this need for an equi-covery, a quote from Anna Marie Tousey who was involved in these panels just yesterday. The old normal didn't work for many of us. How do we then, Kevin, how do we put equity at the centre of things? Well, here's the opportunity. We've obviously painted a picture that amplifies the urgency of the matter. But there is the potential for a more diverse next to workforce and technology does have a fairly fundamental role to play. So I recognise this does not apply globally because access to technology indeed is one of the issues. But let's hold on that thought for a moment. One of the realities of the old normal was there was a lack of geographic flexibility. The labour pool that you sought to recruit from was the one in the immediate area. And quite often that brought issues of race and other matters into a place where it was impossible to make progress. Now there is the possibility to be much more flexible about from where one recruits. And that geographic flexibility can be a counter to some of the issues that get in the way of a more diverse workforce. Secondly, there is the potential for greater flexibility in order to help on work life and other balance. Now, I recognise that flexibility isn't always working. At the moment there's a fine line between remote working and sleeping at the office and many people are sleeping at the office and that is disproportionately impacting women and getting in the way of progress. But let's recall one of the biggest obstacles to progress for women and indeed people at the intersection was the reality that there was a lack of flexibility in their lives. There is that potential now. The third is a more perhaps a softer thought, which is I think we're all rapidly realising we've got the physical virus dreadful as it has been in the damage it has wrought. But there's also the mental health challenge. And with it many employers I think are beginning to understand that one has to think holistically about health and the importance of health. And I think that also can allow for a better attitude and approach to some of the issues we've been discussing. So my hope is that a combination of flexibility, geographic mobility, a greater appreciation for the full issues associated with equality can indeed come together to make this a moment where the reset does allow progress to meet and it does indeed depart from the old ways of working that clearly have got us to a place that is not sustainable when it comes to racial justice and equity and other parts of equity. Ashley we've got some viewer questions coming in and I want to pose this one to you about privacy of data in some countries. It's even illegal to understand questions about diversity background. What can companies do to collect the right data. Yeah, so I think that notion of variability across the world, and what is or is not acceptable to be reported, I think is really something that we have to consider where as we know, on the United States you can but you choose not to you know in other countries that you know that actually by law you can't you can't do that. I think you still have to hold yourself accountability accountable for what's happening in your organization, even if you're not able to share that information out. And so the idea that we would like to see change, but we are not benchmarking from where we are want to move. It's fundamentally a problem. You can't expect to progress if you don't know from where you are progressing. And so to say that you actually want equity and you actually want change, you have to have those metrics and so by whatever means your country allows you to do so, you have to have a starting point. It's similar to revenue right if you decided that any company decided that they want to increase their revenue by two four and wanted to do that within a certain period of time. They would set that metric out there in some shape form or fashion, whether you have to couch it in those things that perhaps may be a confounded with it so if you're not able to report race are you able to report socio economics status those things that tend to to to correlate with them very strongly, but to say that you know we can't do it because we're not allowed to do it so therefore we will not address it, and then also want change at the same time. Those things simply don't work hand in hand. So by whatever means you can be accountable that that your country allows you to do so, then that's what you should seek to do. Another thing that you have to really understand if we're talking about metrics is that it's also about culture, the culture of the country, the culture of the organization, we say we want change but change does not feel good to us. Change is not innate and the way in which we would like to operate, we would instead like to operate in homogenous environments why because similarity attraction paradigm tells us that that's what feels good. Change that's going to cause us to perhaps give up something or first to interpret that we have to give up something as opposed to trying to recognize there can be enough for all, and it does not have to be a zero sum game so altering our culture. When we go into these organizations and we go into countries, you'll be hard pressed to find, well, mostly hard pressed to find people who do not espouse equality and equity and aspirations for for you know these overall diversity equity and inclusion and initiatives. Everyone says yes to the idea, what they say no to is the policies and the procedures and the practices and the internal lens that has to take place in order for that change to to happen. What we know is that when we have the proper motivation, we can accomplish almost anything. So the question is when you say that this notion of you know we don't we're not allowed to have these metrics we're not allowed to do things. But when you have proper motivation, we can accomplish almost anything. So to say these things sometimes can just be an excuse, if you will, and I would challenge you to get above the excuses to in order to move these metrics forward and to have a true jobs reset as we are describing it here. But again, you have to know from where you're moving. Otherwise, you don't know where the progress is actually taking place. Laura, what do we have to do, what do governments have to do and companies as well to prevent things going back into reverse. You were telling us about how fantastic migrants are now considered as far as global health goes. What happens when the pandemic's over. Well, again, I think it is, it is, it has become clear to people that this is this is the access to health is not generosity act, but but really a necessity. I am not seeing everything positive because we have also seen a lot of xenophobia and reaction against migrants saying that migrants are the ones bringing the virus into the countries. So there is always the two sides of the same story but I am talking about the opportunities that it can bring. And I think governments have realized now, for example in the health part that migrants, including those that are undocumented, have to be included in the response in the mechanisms that have been created for response for from the health perspective, everybody has taken it in a certain manner in a more easier way. Now from a socio-economical perspective, the majority of that have been provided and, you know, trying to facilitate access to jobs, maintenance of jobs and things like this have totally ignored migrants, particularly those that are in irregular conditions because they're blind to the system. And they have to understand that very often governments have understood now that they need to address those things. So we have seen here, for example, in Geneva in Switzerland, queues of people looking for items to eat, something that was shocking the whole society in Switzerland because nobody thought that there would be that amount of people within the lockdown that will not be able to get basic food needs. Nonetheless, that has come out. And I think that has created also a reaction of government saying, OK, these are the blind spots that we have. And these are things that we need to address seriously if we don't want to get into this situation again. And as we said, we are closing, getting close to the second lockdown maybe in Europe. And these eventually could be solutions that are already developed or included into the second response. So you're also talking about once this pandemic is over, what if it's not over for a long time from now? Kevin, what's your longer outlook as far as equity goes? Because this could drag on for quite some time. What if we're stuck with this crisis for another year, say, or another two years? Well, I think there's every light that we're stuck with it for quite some time. I mean, I think we cannot speculate as to exactly what length and much of it hinges, of course, on the progress of the vaccines. But there are a few things which I think it's worth remembering as we think about the long term. And I'll come at it from the point of view of business, which is a reminder that there is a business case for racial justice and equity that is powerful in the extreme. And it's in the data. If you look at the performance of the top quartile, then they are 36% more likely to have more diverse teams. There is just this, I don't think I could argue it's causation, but I can argue correlation between high performing organizations tend to have more racially diverse, more gender diverse teams. And there's lots of good reason why that is. So I think Ben, part of the answer is this is a compelling point of progress from an economic point of view, from a business point of view and from a societal point of view. If we are going to be in a reality where this is also a pandemic that has long lasting effects, it is vital we act with that reality in mind that I just described. And it's why I believe that if it's longer term, the stimulus and the other measures that come to be deployed, they should reflect the economic sense and the social sense and they should ensure that we target resources, economic support, other activity to make progress. Because if we don't, the long term consequences of continuing to allow what is happening now to evolve without intervention really would be extraordinarily damaging. And we could speculate as to how they would manifest. But Kevin, I've read those same numbers in many reports from the World Economic Forum over many years. Fumzila, why is it still so hard for a black woman to make a career? Well, I think the discrimination, racial discrimination that is as well and alive. Opportunities are much more accessible for people of different racial groups. And there isn't enough recourse for discrimination. It is not easy for someone to go and say, I didn't get this job because I'm discriminated because people tell you you are playing the racial card. So it is still a very, very hard part. We've had policies on affirmative action and on racial equality. But actually, you cannot change people's behavior, attitudes that easily. It is still hard. There's just still some stubborn attitude that we have not been able to change and to convert into equity that empowers women, who don't even need black women, who don't even need affirmative action, who just need their skills to be respected and recognized because they are not asking for a favor. They have what is required in the job. Well, what's going to change that if the numbers don't? Because they are very convincing and Kevin keeps mentioning them. But I don't see that change. What's going to really change things? You know, in companies and countries, if we're talking about representation, for instance, in parliaments and so on, where you provide enforceable measures that require certain percentage and diversity to be realized. That is when we have seen movement. It is just not possible to rely on the goodness on people's heart. Those who are shareholders and those who are decision makers in these companies, shareholders need to demand the changes. And those who are running the companies need to be held accountable for diversity that is real and seen in the workplace. We are seeing that though. I mean, we are seeing shareholders demand companies to be more responsible, more equitous. We're seeing a completely different generation grow up with completely different demands and respect for one another. Ashley, is it changing enough though? Not certainly not enough and not quick enough. And to the extent that as you say younger people maybe are more open and committed to diversity. The generation of those who are still in charge is not as committed. And therefore there has to be a way in which the expectations for diversity can be enforceable. Otherwise, even where you have policies if they don't have teeth and enforceability, they don't mean anything. Ashley, what's it like in the corporate world? I think there are a couple of things happening here that I hope we're able to capitalize on that the pandemic has shed light on because what we had happened during the pandemic are two central things. We had the social crisis, the racial unrest. We also had the economic crisis and we had the health crisis. And so what it allowed us to do is to not look at one or the other, right? But to actually look at two things simultaneously. Looking at the economic inequality and also within the context of the social injustice and say that it's not one of the other but we have to do both. I think as a result we have an opportunity to capitalize on something that hasn't happened in my lifetime. Not to say that it hasn't happened but hasn't happened in my lifetime. And that is we actually have corporations starting to want to engage in an integrative solution as opposed to a one-off solution. What we saw pre-pandemic was the notion that there is underrepresentation. So what we need to do is that we need to hire more. But that was it. There was not a lot of focus on retention or altering behavior or community presence or communication. And so this idea, this notion of a more integrative approach and trying to attack the issue from multiple domains I think is ultimately what's going to see a result in the change that we would like to see. That's really has highlighted the notion of actually focusing on changing attitudes. That's a very, very, very slow process. And it's going to take a whole lot of time and I don't know that that's going to happen. We've been trying to change attitudes for a long period of time. You have to actually change the structure of the entity. Focusing not just on behavior in terms of compliance but also internalization of these ideas. Kevin talked about the business case for diversity, but that needs to be in conjunction with the moral case of diversity. And so I think with the pandemic and seeing both the economic difference and the social justice differences in terms of just both of them at the same time is that perhaps we actually can adjust both at the same time. Because what history tells us is that when an economic crisis comes, that oftentimes the focus on diversity is the first thing that falls off. And so you choose not to put your energies and your monies there, but what this pandemic has forced us to do with the statements that all the corporations have been made that we're currently analyzing. With the commitments that the leaders have made. And then with the empowerment that the employees and the workers have demonstrated in their commitment to this is to say that this needs to be a much more integrative approach and not just trying to tackle it by focusing just on the numbers. And I think then what we're also seeing is that putting real money behind and resources behind this change. Now, is it at the level that it should be? No, but is that level that we haven't really seen condensed within such a short period of time before? Absolutely. Kevin, were you trying to say something there? I think it was actually background noise, but I will come in because I agree with that. I think there is the risk that we just focus on one element. Recognize that if we did that, we've been doing that for a while, we're obviously not going to succeed. So I completely agree that this requires a combination of actions. I do think if one wants to be optimistic and it is important, I think in the midst of all the challenges that we face, I think the level of action now and the intensity with which this is being discussed. And that's a soft metric is definitely and unequivocally far greater than I've seen in many years. And there is this moment when I think the case fraction has become urgent. The appreciation, as I said earlier, of a more holistic view of what's going on coupled with some very compelling numbers that have been around for a long time. It almost feels as if we just need another shove to really ensure that we can actually make some progress. And I hope that conversation like this, actually a very tangible outcome, which is a renewed appreciation for the urgency with which the action is required, because this does have to break with the past. Well, talking about a nudge, would tax incentives, this is a question coming from a viewer, would tax incentives created to diversify institutions and all management levels be effective to close this generation commitment gap? Ben, do you want me to say that? Yeah, sure, Kevin. Look, I think I think this does require intervention. I don't think it's just naturally occurring. So the intervention can be in the form of incentives. And I think if that means tax, just as we're not discussing the environment today, but we know that environmental change when it's captured with economic incentives and opportunities to bridge the gap between the future value and the current reality of P&Ls that are very stretched will help. So I do think there are opportunities here. I'm not going to get into tax policy per se, but I think there are real opportunities to motivate action. And that could be in the form of incentives that are economic. It could just be in the form of more transparency around progress. And I think that's one of the points I heard Ashley make, which I think is a different point from privacy issues. It's just saying a lot of corporations that are publishing numbers, they just didn't publish in the past. And that will be helpful because I think it means people are far more accountable. And I think that accountability is actually the most likely way in which we're going to get progress. Briefly, another question from Zilla for you. What is the likelihood of decisions by governments, institutions and businesses that could lead to systemic change on embedding equity and inclusion? I think you do need carrots and sticks, so to say incentivize change and have certain specified goals and milestones that need to be reached. And at the same time, have some sticks to make sure that if people do not comply, there is consequences. Having said that, in my country, South Africa, there was a time when we were trying to incentivize change exactly with carrots and sticks. Some companies would rather pay a fine rather than make the change. So, you know, you have still to couple it with the moral case, ensuring that you work towards deploying people in those spaces who believe in the change that needs to happen. The power and the role of trade unions, which I feel has underperformed when it comes into bringing about changes that highlight and enable gender equality, maybe not so bad on racial equality. So there is a bigger role for trade unions, especially now after the pandemic when the situation can be so dire if we don't act together in a positive way. Laura, one more question for you because you were talking about remittances before, and along with that dependency on remittances and work being cut off for low middle economies. How are we going to tackle the domestic violence and growing number of suicide rates during this current scenario? Well, that's a very difficult question to be honest. Remittances, I think at the moment that there is the opening of job markets again, remittances can come up again. It will require a little bit of time but we will come up again. But domestic violence is something that we have seen increasing substantially and that will have to be, I think a lot of governments are trying to address it. Kevin talked a little bit about mental health and the comprehensive approach that we need to look at now. And that is essential because Poncillo will also tell you about the amount of women that have been, you know, aggravated during this crisis. So this is a fundamental element. But I want to come back a little bit to the point of how we make this change reality because I think it is important that we all recognize that social and political pressure has forced all of us. And I'm talking private sector but also public sector to become much more transparent and much more open to diversity and have forced all of us to look at ways to facilitate that diversity within our own organizations and that responsibility. So I think it is something that is happening. It is certainly not happening at the speed that we want and with the results maybe that we want. But today we all are reporting about things that when I enter, for example, the UN system long time ago, nobody was thinking about not even taking into account. And today, these are priorities for all of us, for all of the heads of agencies. And the same thing applies for the private sector. We work with the private sector in a lot with a lot of companies about how to protect migrants, how to keep supply chain systems clean of modern slavery. So these realities are taking place and we cannot ignore those neither. I think, despite the fact that we are in a difficult year, there is a lot of progress that is happening and certainly we will need to continue pushing ourselves to make it happen quicker. It was fantastic to hear your take and everyone's take there on the various aspects involved here as far as equity inclusion and social justice goes, especially during this pandemic, post pandemic and well depending upon how long this pandemic really goes on for. From Zilla for your take there on on women and getting so many of those women back into work, the policies that governments need to adopt and the flexibility that they need to adopt according to Kevin, as far as geo mobilizing goes and also looking at the full issue here and the intersection of minorities and gender and race which Ashley also looked at and spoke about also the the moral case and the business case. I think it's so important that shareholders around the world have started to realize that there's a business case involved, which they can profit from as far as inclusion goes, but there's also that moral case that isn't being taken up around the world by everyone. Fantastic insights from all of you thanks for the viewers from around the world for your input as well and your questions. I really appreciate that. And it's been fantastic having you all here, Kevin, Ashley from Zilla and Laura to debate equity inclusion and social justice.