 Friends, good afternoon. I thought that I would begin just after lunch, so that's how I context it myself. But I think the point still holds. Media today is not only a newspaper or a television channel or an online platform. And media is far more broad-based today. I'll set that with an example. Even before the US announced its Bin Laden mission and the completion of it, this gentleman to our right, Shrey Bazar, actually was communicating it live, almost giving a day-to-day, minute-to-minute account of how the choppers came in, though he did not know what the objective was or who the target was. The gentleman to our left, Pete Urban, of course knew what he was doing. At that point of time, he was already a very, very senior former, very senior government officer, a former chief of staff to a former defense secretary of the US. He was told by someone that that mission had been done. And he consciously went and put that tweet out, knowing fully well what he was doing. So the media today is everywhere, because the media today is every citizen. And that is a big shift. It is a fundamental shift. If that is a big shift and a fundamental shift, the second big shift is this, that companies interaction with its audience, with its market, with its consumers, every company associated interaction with its audience today potentially can be captured, can be posted, can be commented upon. So that is a second big shift that is taking place. The third big shift is this, that in the last few years, if you look at big issues, big debates, big discussions happening in the corporate world, much, much of that is because of people of an organization. I'll substantiate that point where, if you're familiar with the Homes Report, I was looking at the Homes Report 2018 compilation of the world's biggest corporate issues and prices. That is 60% of them. That is 60% of them can be directly related to people issues, to people's conduct, both willful misconduct, for example, a fear campaign, defaulcation of funds, or, for example, hiding truth, to not willful, but at the same time, be unconscious about insensitive statements, insensitive behavior, insensitive responses to different kinds of stakeholders. I'll give you two examples. This large global organization had an issue. It hired an entity to manage the issue. That entity decided that it would do a kind of a smear campaign. People inside the organization who are responsible for managing that entity, rather than forewarning the organization that what could this repercussion actually participate in that campaign. And reports are that the head of that team actually ultimately had to lose her job. A second example of what an insensitive, not willful, but being insensitive can do. Here goes this organization, managing, already managing inside an issue, real serious issue, and suddenly one of the senior people gets on to a television channel, and in the course of discussion on that issue, makes this comment, people are talking about us as if we have murdered babies in the car, murdered babies in the car. That was the insensitive comment, and what was the scatter actually played out into an inferred. So that is a third big shift, and I would actually submit that more than products and people, more than products and processes, people today are essential to a company's reputation or its ill-received. And that is where it comes in corporate governance. Corporate governance is usually seen as a system to manage, a system to govern, conduct, fiduciary responsibilities. I would think corporate governance has to expand if people are central to that issue, to actually governing people, schooling, coaching, making people view the right thing at every workstation, at every moment, even without being supervised. And if that is so, then corporate communication becomes central to corporate governance. Why so? That is because corporate communication, as a discipline, has visibility in the entire organization. Manufacturing, marketing, sales, research, finance and accounts, corporate communicators have visibility throughout the organization. That's why. Second, corporate communications are actually networked right from the floor to the safety officers. Think about it. You're all corporate communicators here. We're all corporate communicators here. We use this visibility and network to actually create the narrative for our organization population and communicate on that narrative. I think the same visibility and network now has to be deployed into actually helping corporate governance, governing organizations. I'll give you an example. Very often, we can notice this aberration or deviation from what the company's stated policies, behavior, practices are. We need to speak out on that. I'll give you an example of a corporate communication team which I know of who did it. The company had gone out and launched a product. Marsh anticipated for a long time, which had captured the imagination of everyone. After the launch of the product, a particular batch of that product, section of the product, had a problem. The company was responding. But the corporate communication team thought that the organization needed to demonstrate and act on it with far more elasticity than it was demonstrated. So one day, the team decided that it will go and directly speak to the head of that organization, the chairman of the organization, that the company needs to behave far more proactively with greater elasticity. And I tell you, I'm told that within 12 hours, the company decided to take a string of action. And the problem was addressed. The second aspect of what corporate communication needs to do is actually sensitize colleagues to the facts, to the context in which we live, that we live in a 24 into seven live reality show. We often tend to believe that people know, but very often people do not know. And that's why insensitive ads, insensitive statements, insensitive behavior get done. Look at this example. One of the most famous houses in the world. Launching an advertisement which ridicules the eating habits of a particular community in a particular concept. And even when this issue has been spoken about, one of the founders of this organization is caught in a conversation, social media conversation, which tended to be racist. This gentleman's firm, makes me, has grown up, and apology was due, of course, I'm sorry, we are sorry. But I would like my life back. It led to a flare up of that crisis. They were dragging a man out of a passenger out of an aircraft. Little did they realize that there was codes of mobile phones out there, recording it, and putting it out across the world. So, behavior, how to behave, how to conduct, how to deal with the world outside, people need to be continuously sensitized. I'll give you an example of how one organization is doing it. This particular organization, very often conducts relief operations, disaster relief operations. So every time colleagues go out, the communications team actually sensitizes them, takes a session on how do you actually behave, how do you conduct yourself, how do you sit, can do everything when you are with victims in a disaster zone. So would they behave intensively if they were not forced? Most probably not, most are definitely not. But every time when you sensitize, you are making people even more conscious about what is expected. A third aspect of what public communication can do, and it happens in every company. This conducts duty, please. We are very often apologetic, really about making misconduct known because we think that it possibly can lead to, lead to a degree of embarrassment. Some companies think a little differently. I can give one example of a margin answer, 200 years now, which has found a very subtle way of also making misconduct known inside the organization. And as an outsider, when I look at that organization, I very often, in most cases, when generic issues have been debated, I have found that that particular organization has not been called out. So there must be something right that they are doing. Now, these are the duties. But to do these duties, I believe that we corporate communications need to, ourselves, impose on ourselves a certain behavior pattern. And the first of them is to act as an internal activist. How so? I'll give you an example from another organization. Now, through their ORM, this particular organization, the comms team, the organization came to know that a video had been put up of a particular product and there was a complaint on the quality of the product that video showed up. So the comms team took it to the marketing guys. In the marketing guys, the category can be said that there's nothing wrong with the product. The product cannot even behave in the manner in which the video is trying to show, demands it. The comms team went twice, he put his foot down and said that while you may be saying so, what we want is that an independent test be done, as per norm, a test done at an independent lab and you want to be armed with the report. At the comms team's institution, it was done. This product, at first, was fine. So, behaving as an internal activist inside organization. The second behavior is this, that we usually tend to trust, everyone is trusting, but even as we trust, we need to test. I'll give you an example of what can happen when you trust, but do not test. This particular organization, the comms team, is a complaint from an NGO rather acting as an NGO, that a plant of this organization at a very remote location was not using pollution now. So, the comms team spoke with its bosses and then eventually contacted the plant. The plant then said everything is possible, nothing wrong. So, and this happened at a particular point of time, over three, four weeks later, I believe, this NGO goes out and issued a statement that we have found that this particular company, this particular plant, has to be violating now. This is what the plant said, the comms team issued a written denial, as much as the NGO put it, believes out the comms team also believes out. Later, that is me. That's plant manager called and said I have now noticed, Violet, that evening the company shut the plant down, ordered a probe, and eventually in the probe it was found that that particular plant was in the center of the culture, he knew all around what to do. So, no one crossed shit. I have often asked myself this question, that why did anyone cross shit? And the answer that has come to me, that no one has crossed shit at that point of time, because in that particular organization, this kind of a willful mischievous, was simply unimaginable. So, the lesson that I thought everyone would have learned there, is that people can surprise. So, therefore, trustee but testing. Now, what are the benefits of corporate communications, behaving, or acting as corporate government? I assume that there are two benefits. The first is premotem. Now, what is premotem? Premotem is the opposite of post-mortem. Post-mortem happens is basically what happens, public. Premotem is what can happen. Post-mortem is usually public, leading to issues, leading to crisis. Premotem is internal, where the company itself can contribute to raising questions, looking at issues, and plugging gaps if there are any. The second benefit of course is very simple, which is enlightened self-interest as people would say. What is more difficult to do, or what is more easy to do? Stopping a bad story, which has gone bad, gone out, or stopping a story from before it has gone bad. I would think it is much easier, much more easy, to stop a story before it is going bad, rather than when it has already gone bad. So, to sum up, media is every individual everywhere. We companies, unconscious to ourselves, are actually in a 24 into 7 life reality show. Anyone can force, anyone can capture, anyone can comment on any occasion of a company's interaction. And usually, people give way to an experience of a negative in recent times. It possibly is that people are the new problem. Corporate governance should extend to governing people behavior. And corporate communications has a role in corporate governance. In watching, listening, speaking up, moving from media training for some to behavior training, plugging ourselves along with our HR colleagues to do behavior training for all, making misconduct known in a very subtle manner. Our behavior should be, our own behavior should be, that we should be the internal activists in an organization. As an organization, as a discipline, yes you will trust, but we must also test. And the benefits of corporate communicators acting as corporate governors is basically that the organization gets to do a pre-mortem and stories get stopped before they have turned back. Finally, to conclude with just one anecdote and a personal anecdote, I was once in an organization which had a process about announcing its pricing decision. So on one occasion, a colleague called and asked me whether we could deviate from that process. I didn't really gave it, and he said that market communication is very difficult. And we made a decision, we made an announcement. Later in the evening, I was going home. So I ended the call and said that I believe we have deviated from our pricing announcement process. So I said, yes, the business was requested. This is who in the business. So I said that the business, he cut the phone. But before that, he asked me a question which just happened about 10 years back. It still remains the thing that they were here. Who is the great keeper? We corporate communicators are also the great keepers of our organization. That's why corporate communication is also corporate governance. Thank you.