S02E05 - GHG - Game theory (Transcript)

# S02E05 - GHG - Game Theory or...what robbing a bank and getting to net zero in your firm have in common

[00:00:00]

Welcome to the supply chain dialogues season two, episode five. I am Daniel Helmig. There is a field in economics. That is a good bet to excel in. If you like to earn a Nobel prize. Up to now, 15 scientists receive the prize in this field. We're talking about game theory. Now you probably start thinking about black Jack and maybe as well, the Hollywood movie, a beautiful mind with a young Russell Crowe playing Nobel prize Laureate. John Nash. If you haven't seen the movie you're in for a treat. Anyway. Game theory solutions can be applied to all walks of life from the bar scene in that movie. No spoiler alert. You have to watch it yourself. To negotiations between states companies or how to solve nearly unsolvable dilemmas for mankind. Now, besides scientists, there is what companies that Excel in [00:01:00] this field. TWS partners is a leading economics consulting firm. With a strong focus in game theory since 23 years,

I'm joined today by one of the managing partners of the firm Dr. Sebastian Moritz

and we'll talk how to use game theory to get to net zero emissions. Clearly one of those nearly insolvable dilemma's I mentioned before.

Sebastian. Thank you very much for joining the supply chain dialogues.

Thanks Daniel. Thanks for having me.

When I look at your fascinating background and your current position, what's one thing you deeply appreciate in your life right now?

That's a very good question, yeah. Normally I would talk about, the stability that my family gives me in my life. But, recently I... I found out that probably I'm very grateful that the biggest problem I face at the moment is that my daughter caught lysis, and, , No one is actually dropping bombs on our head .

If I read the news every day. And I'm pretty grateful that lices are my only problem that I'm facing. If you look at Russia, [00:02:00] China, Ukraine, Israel at the moment, that's, I find that quite scary. And can be fairly grateful that we live in a safe place.

The Americans have a nice saying, count your blessings, thank, thank you very much. That's, that's a very good point. Okay. Let's delve into our today's topic. So how do you approach the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from a game theory negotiation perspective?

Tell me about it.

Game theory is an economic field which mainly deals with, designing incentives and mechanisms that you get parties to act in a way you want them to act, or find your own strategy within the framework that someone else has set.

At the end, every kind of interaction that we're facing in our private life and our business life and politics is an interaction where the other side reacts to what I'm doing. And, I need to optimize my own strategies, my own moves by thinking through this whole problem of the interaction.

And as an [00:03:00] economist. greenhouse gas emissions are exactly this kind of problem. It's a very complex system of interaction. Every one of us emits, and produces, carbon emissions.

And we need to think about solutions of how we best achieve the... objectives that we need, getting to maximum increase of 1. 5 degrees Celsius . And this is where economics come in, this is where Game Theory comes in, and this is where we look at how can we design Incentives and mechanisms for people, organizations, also in international politics context for the interaction and agreements between countries of how to best achieve that.

We're trying to shape the interactions of the players that are involved in that situation, um, in a way that we best possible achieve the objectives that we have set.

All right. Now, let's talk about one of the aspects, many people know , the prisoner's dilemma. And as far as I understand, the prisoner's dilemmas is a well known concept in game theory.[00:04:00] Would you mind just explain the key features of it.

Almost everyone has heard of it, when studying at university or going to the movies and watching Russell Crowe, starring the famous mathematician John Nash, the prisoner's dilemma is a very simple, example that tries to highlight one paradox where, individuals acting in their self interest Get to worse results than in a situation in which they had cooperated.

And that sounds counterintuitive because everyone who probably has heard about, economics thinks, okay, if everyone does what is best for him, we achieve the overall best result for all of us. And this is the principle of, how they operate in the Western world, everyone should get as much freedom as possible.

And we get to the best result for all of us. That's the kind of mantra that is underlying a lot of our Western economies. Now, if we find a situation in which this self interest of an individual or a number of individuals doesn't lead to the best outcome for the group, [00:05:00] there's a surprise .

And this is, , where, where this comes from. And in the literature is richly described as the prisoner's dilemma. Let's say, Daniel, you, me, we are typically not into robbing banks, but let's say we make up an artificial example. We meet, one night, at a bar.

We both don't know each other, but find it a good idea that, rather than working doing podcasts and, and consulting companies, we think about robbing a bank. And we say, okay, let's go for that. We are fairly successful. Yeah, we get into the bank, we get the money, we get out of it. And then we hear the police coming after us.

So we get rid of the money. But the police catches us at the end. And they put us into, , different rooms . And what the police says to both of us, independently, Daniel, we are pretty sure that you robbed the bank, but we can't prove it.

The only thing that we know is, that you have this gun in your hand when we caught you. And now I'm making you the following offer. Either, you stay silent. Then, the only thing that I can prove is the [00:06:00] illegal gun possession and you get a minor sentence for that. Or you confess, , then, I can offer you a leniency program, you are free,

the only thing that you need to do is to confess and tell me that Sebastian was part of the bank robbery and you actually committed that crime. Now, if they tell me exactly the same thing and say, Sebastian, the gun is an issue.

It's some kind of minor crime for us, but if you confess you are free, then it's all fine.

But interestingly, if we can prove that you did it, you go. to jail for 10 years and the same was true for Daniel. . And now, the game theorist looks at what would Daniel and Sebastian do in that particular situation.

Yeah. And it's not that trivial, but if you play it through with the lenses of a game theory, it's relatively straightforward. Let's put ourselves first into the shoes of you,

so,

Daniel, and say, okay, what should you do? You have now, the choice of [00:07:00] confessing, or you have the choice of, staying silent.

Now, what is your best answer to that question when you know that Sebastian confesses. Then for you, obviously, staying silent is not a very good idea because then, you go to jail for 10 years, Sebastian gets free. That's probably the worst outcome you can end up with.

If Sebastian stays silent. Then obviously, for you staying silent means the police has still this issue with a gun. And this is a minor crime, but committed, confessing in that situation would get Sebastian into jail. But yourself, you would leave the room as a free man, which means. That confessing is for you, the better option, and that's now a very interesting situation for you, irrespective of what, of what Sebastian does , confessing is the better strategy. Now, that was a [00:08:00] fairly symmetric situation. That means if this is your optimal strategy, it seems to be the same optimal strategy for me as well.

The interesting part here is that we obviously have a self interest, to get the best possible deal out of that situation with the police by confessing. Although if we both had stayed silent in that situation, we both would only be sentenced for this illegal gun possession, minor crime, and wouldn't be that painful for both of us.

And that's where this paradox comes from. We don't want is best for us in our very own self interest. But for us as a group, it's probably the worst outcome we can end up with because both of us go to prison for 10 years. And that's the kind of situation that resembles a lot of interactions that we find in the real world.

And this is why this whole idea of the Prisoners Dilemma caught. So much attention. Yeah. And first in the academic world and later in politics and business as well.[00:09:00]

So you're so right. It's a fascinating concept and it happens everywhere.

It's fascinating. Talk about fishing, for example, you have fishing quota in almost every country. But every fisherman has an incentive to catch a little bit more than His or her own quota, which means that at the end, everyone is pulling a bit too much fish out of the ocean, which means the livestock is decreasing, which causes a problem for all of us long term.

Considering what you said with regard to, the fishing industry, could we consider the current struggle of nations and companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions swiftly? Could we argue that that actually , a prisoner's dilemma is unfolding?

There's a German economist, , Professor Ockenfels, who called it the mother of all coordination problems, , the prisoner's dilemma is a coordination problem, coming back to our situation, with the two of us sitting in different rooms and being questioned by the police, the only, problem that we actually have is we can't coordinate our [00:10:00] responses.

We are isolated. We need to decide on our own what is best for us. And I can't talk to you. Yeah. If I could go to your room and say, Daniel, if we both shut up, we go for a beer afterwards. Then it's a completely different result. So, and we have a similar situation, with the climate.

There is no country which has It's own climate. There's not the German climate or the American climate. There's a global climate. And we all benefit or suffer from, the development now. Interestingly, we end up in a similar situation as before individually.

It's not good for me as a country to invest money into climate protection activities. Why is that? Massive amounts of money that I need to spend in order to protect the climate. But I'm only participating in getting the benefits to a very small extent.

Because I have a relatively minor impact on the climate. Don't know the number numbers precisely, but for the German CO2 emissions, I would say generally probably accounts for one to 2 percent of the overall emissions.

Which [00:11:00] means, if I reduce my emissions by 5 percent in the next year, the effect on the global climate is relatively limited. If you reverse that argument is even worse. Because it means that for every country. They could act as a free rider, they could simply say, we don't do anything that the other solve the problem.

I still benefit from whatever they are doing, without investing anything into it. And because everyone could end up in that kind of thinking, everyone is doing too little to fight climate change. And that's, the coordination problem. We need to find a way of coordinating those activities that we. break through this vicious circle of people trying to do less because it's in their very own interest not to do Too much and rather consume the benefits that others have actually triggered with their own activities. I

Oh, that's a dangerous situation. I mean, at that point in time, you would look for the piece which would actually then do the coordination, whether it is now the United [00:12:00] Nations or for example, one leading country that signal to everyone else that this is what we're going to do.

And then people would follow. Now, TWS partners and your team, you're driving greenhouse gas emission reduction with your clients. You do it actively. Please provide an example of your efforts in this area. What do you do?

I'll probably one step back to try to understand a corporation, that is facing that kind of problem. If you read the news and the business magazines. You will sense that almost every organization, in the Western world, has committed or pledged some kind of net zero roadmap, committed to science based targets and all of this stuff.

The challenge for me now is if you are a company X and saying, by 2030, we are net zero. This is how our agenda looks like. I always try to provoke a bit of the discussion by saying, dear CEO, tell me the one person in the organization that is guaranteeing you that you achieve [00:13:00] that number . And is personally accountable for doing that. You wouldn't find a single person in a single company because everyone knows this is a target. You probably should call it more an ambition and not many plans exist of how to get there. People start obviously with the first step, where it's about carbon accounting, trying to understand it, , first we change, our energy mix and go for green energy.

We can think about EV vehicles instead of, fuel fired vehicles. All of that are natural things, but there are harder nuts to crack and whether you achieve your objective is probably up to chance that you really meet your objective.

A game theorist looks at it from a completely different perspective.

And says, okay, what do I want to achieve by when I'm thinking from the back end, and saying, which kind of mechanisms do I need to install today in order to ensure that we are guaranteed [00:14:00] to meet our target by a certain date? There's one thing probably that everyone knows who, understands how the European union at the moment is managing their carbon emissions.

They installed the cap and trade mechanism. And that's technically designed by economists where economists said, we define the amount of carbon that, can be consumed at any point in time. You get some kind of allocation of. Rights to pollute the environment with CO2 emissions.

If you have more than that, look, if you find someone else who wants to buy those rights, you know, call them credits, but what they technically establish is a marketplace for CO2 emissions, which always works exactly to the cap that you have defined for any. Point in time, which is a very efficient mechanism to achieve actually what you want to achieve. Because if the roadmap tells you there can't be more carbon emissions or you're out of business means you will be by definition ending up in the [00:15:00] place which you want to be in a certain year.

Now, transferring that into the business environment means we need similar systems. Not necessarily a cap and trade mechanism, you know, very advanced organizations thinking about similar kind of mechanisms, but we need to think from the back end and saying, okay, if we want to start, reducing carbon today, what are the steps, what are the mechanisms and incentives that will put.

In place, at which point in time to guarantee that we get to that ultimate goal. And this is actually what we do with companies that are very advanced. We think about how do we not only try to go like in a very conventional management style from left to right, but starting to go first from the outcome , define a plan, and then start working according to that plan that you have with. Robust incentives mechanisms similar to, that we have discussed in the first minutes of this podcast.

Hm. Sebastian, you have a [00:16:00] recommendation for an internal CO2 trading mechanism that caught my attention. Can you elaborate on this principle a little bit?

This trading mechanism is very similar to what I described on the level of the European Union, the cap and trade mechanism. That ensures that you save the next ton of c o two where. It is least costly for you. Sounds a bit technical.

But let me start with the issue statement first. How would you typically... Solve some kind of, problem in an organization. Let's say you're on a huge cost pressure. You need to go through a cost cutting program.

What typically the CEO of a company does is they assign top down targets for all the different divisions, for all the departments. And in the worst case, you say, everyone needs to reduce by 10%. Now, think of an environment where you tell every division, every department to reduce carbon emissions by 10%.

Now you will get into a situation where one department has [00:17:00] one brilliant idea. They can install it in a user in the next minute and target achieved, but they probably will stop at that number because that's exactly the number I've been given. It rarely happens in large organizations that you do much more than you have to because you know the next target, is coming around the corner anyway next year.

So, it provides less incentives for those people who could do more and it might get highly inefficient in terms of the cost and resources that you have to invest five million to move everything to green chemicals, green steel in a certain production facility just to achieve that, target of 10%. So you need to invest a lot of money, although the other department would have easily able to contribute to your target and, do trading between targets, but it's not possible within that very rigid and top down defined target system. And this is the problem that such a trading system in an organization tries to address. What [00:18:00] what you technically can do is say you all get targets. That's all fine.

But if you find someone that is able to Contribute to your target. You can trade that. For example against budget swaps. Where you say, I'll give you a bit of money. From my deposit department. If you give me your contributions to our net zero roadmap. So what you're technically doing is very similar to what I described, on the level of the European union, you

Turn carbon reductions. Into a currency. You can trade that, like you can trade resources, time, and, expertise within an organization. And this is now a very, interesting mechanism because now imagine that this actually happens. Then, for me, it's very difficult to do it while you, Daniel, you can easily do that.

I approach you and say, Daniel, are you happy to help me out? And you say, I'm happy to help you out, but what do I get in return for it? We find some kind of agreement, we trade the stuff. And I achieve my target , so what it does is [00:19:00] it turns it into the currency that I described.

But more importantly, it gives the incentive not to do crazy things in an organization fulfilling some kind of top down targets, but really making sure that the next ton is saved for the least cost impact or impact on the P and L of a business.

And that's very appealing. If we find a mechanism where you don't do crazy stuff as an organization, because your target setting was wrong, that appeals to a lot of people with some kind of, economic attitude to what's solving those kinds of

Yeah, it is based on the Homo Economicus. It's based on markets. But we now apply it as well to this concept.

And interestingly, it even gives you time. Imagine I'll, I need to get you to help me out with, with your ability to save short term something, I'll technically buy myself time yet to work on the harder things that I can't move immediately, but, if I would gain. One or two years more time, [00:20:00] maybe in year three, I'm able to, to reduce myself.

And then I can help out you, in your department in case that you have something, which is still some kind of very persistent, carbon emission piece in your portfolio, which you have difficulties to get rid of. So it's, it's becoming really a mechanism, a trading place for carbon emissions.

Like we see it in other markets as well.

Economists think very often about efficiency, and efficiency doesn't mean to go for the most difficult hunt first. But you want to go in the order, easy things first, you have to buy time and gain more credibility to do the tougher stuff later.

Now, you are involved in this, but you do a lot of other stuff as well. Normally you're involved in corporate strategy support and development . How do you get clients towards achieving both what we're just talking about right now, net zero ahead of the competitors and if possible as well, increasing profitability simultaneously?

Is that possible or is it a dilemma?[00:21:00]

It is a dilemma. I think certain organizations are still blind to the problem that carbon reductions won't come for free. If I talk to a lot of organizations at the moment and you say, okay, are you committed to reduce carbon emissions, then they will say yes. If you say you have a willingness to pay to reduce carbon reductions at the moment, then the answer is no.

So asking for a company, whether they have a willingness to pay, they probably say no to it. And it's take an example. Yeah. If you, if you're an automotive manufacturer you buying gray steel, produced with conventional energy and someone offers you tomorrow, you can have a green steel as much as you want.

The question will probably be. Okay. Will it cost me more? And if the answer is you have to pay a premium of 30, 40, 50 percent of whatever the number is, then very often the answer will be no, thank you. Pressure is not, big enough that I'm willing to jump on that.

This is an extreme example, but, even in smaller instances, you might be in a situation where you say. [00:22:00] I don't want to afford it because, it's not that mission critical for me at the moment. And here is where, where the proof is in the pudding at the end of the day.

Yeah. If I'm not having a willingness to walk the talk , then, this becomes a problem. This is where we try to understand the trade off. Traditionally it is cost, quality and time, and now it's cost, quality, time and carbon. You can think of carbon as, as a currency, that you can exchange with other currencies. Then it's relatively simple to say we need to think about the trade off mechanism between. All the objects that I have and carbon forms one of them, . And definitely not with a price of zero, but with the true price that I attach to carbon reductions.

And if I do that, then it's relatively straightforward because this is what most organizations are good at finding the right balance between cost, time and quality, and now we're just integrating an additional criterion that plays a role there, then it becomes really technical in the implementation because it's, it's just about finding [00:23:00] the trade off mechanism of how you find the right balance when you make management decisions or sourcing decisions in a particular environment.

interesting. When you look at it from a, , from a supply chain perspective, , then in most companies, whether it is in the manufacturing or even in the financial services business, the highest amount of carbon footprint is produced in the supply chain.

It's between 70 to 80 percent of the total. Footprint when you look at scope three. When you are sitting between the rock and the hard place on the one hand side, you are being still asked to reduce costs. And on the other side, you as well should reduce. Carbon, now, we had similar situations in the past when we implemented ISO 9000 at the beginning, every company that was ISO 9000 certified was clearly trying to get their leg up in terms of pricing.

But over time, As part of Porter's Five Forces, the prices came down because the more entrants into the market, the lower as well than the cost became. So here we have a similar situation. Now let's talk about, your [00:24:00] headset from an economist and as well from a game theory expert

Here I am, trying to, work with my, C level suites to actually get them going .

What would you recommend , what kind of tools could I use maybe from your toolbox?

And for me, it's all about incentives. This is, relatively straightforward and this situation hinges on a number of incentives. If I as an executive don't have that as part of my own personal objectives. I have very limited incentive to do anything. There are not many organizations who have publicly announced that this became part of, the compensation scheme of the management, but that's for me a necessity.

If it doesn't hurt for me as a manager, then I probably won't do it. So that's the first kind of incentive that needs to be installed. The second one is we need to have an incentive for the organization to work into that direction, which also means if I just incentivize my buyer to just look at price or quality , then it's very clear what I get as [00:25:00] an outcome, I get very cheap products, but they are not green.

And as long as, I can't see how green solutions are cheaper than the conventional gray solutions that we are having, simply because there's a massive. Demand for too little supply in that market, which means prices should be high. That means if I'm just going for the cheapest solution, the probability that I end up with green solutions is relatively small.

So also the people who actually enacting that management vision needs to have the right incentive. And then for me, the third group is the supply chain that you mentioned. If 60, 70 percent are done in the supply chain, I need to have credibility towards the supply chain.

I need to give them incentive to invest into green solutions now, and they should do it actually with me. And because there's also risk, if someone in supply chain says, I have limited capacity, I can produce 30 percent of my volume, as a green product. Then they start to do some kind of auction of their [00:26:00] sales site and say, which of my customers would like to have that in order to fulfill their own objectives.

Give your partners in the supply chain, visibility of how you value carbon, vis a vis other criteria that play a role and walk the talk by enacting that. And sometimes buying a solution that is more expensive, but helping you on your way to achieve that will not always be the case.

It will be a trade off, but that solutions exist of how you can do the balancing right. And say, I only buy a green solution when overall for a company pays off. We discussed earlier by combining all the objectives that you have into one single decision criterion.

We very often do that with our clients where we break down time, quality cost and carbon into a common denominator. What can be more important for a company than at the end, the PNL, of an organization. So probably the common denominator is Euro U S dollars pound sterling or yen.

And we need to find a way of [00:27:00] measuring carbon emissions and the value of carbon emissions as equal to how we do it to, on time delivery to quality issues or simply to cost that I'm paying to to actually buy a product. And this is, for me the most critical point when it comes to the supply chain.

We need to be transparent and committed to the mechanism of how we make decisions. And this necessarily needs to comprise carbon as a key element of that.

Hmm. Fully agree. And, and I think what you mentioned as well earlier that you have to find a trading mechanism , from one category to the next, , is probably a solution.

So if you have green steel, which is currently due to the few companies that have it, one German company, kloeckner, beside as well SSAB in Sweden and a few others, that's more expensive. But if you then. put the carbon target together as well with the cost reduction target. You drive creativity in all the minds of the people in your procurement [00:28:00] organization. Because I said, I need that green steel, but how do I offset it with any of the other categories? And from my amount of time that I spent in this, there is that solution always. You have to find it. But as you said, you have to hold feet to the fire of the supply chain and the rest of the organization.

Guys. It's carbon and cost reduction. It's carbon and revenue. It's carbon and meeting your budget. And then trust your people doing it. That's a very valuable lesson, I think. Thank you. That's good.

It's walking the talk, and you need to hardwire it into the incentives of your own organization. And the same with your supply chain, you need to change the mechanism that govern that, and also making it as transparent as possible of how you will be making decisions in the future.

I'm absolutely realistic you can't get the entire supply chain from day one saying, carbon has a certain value. Everyone that doesn't deliver [00:29:00] green solutions for me is out of business. That doesn't work. If you think of, automotive or even the chemical industry, even worse, you can't do that from one day to another.

But what you can tell them is. In 2025, everyone who hasn't provided a carbon footprint to me, is no longer eligible to win any future business. In 2023, I will start to turn, that into a go, no go criteria for doing any business at all with me. So with perspective of two to three years, I give them a warning that something is coming.

And , I give them time to transform and work into that direction. I could say in year 2028, I start to. Incorporate a carbon price and say, every ton of CO2 is valued with a price of X in my internal decision making. It's probably not reflecting the true carbon price at that point, but it's a starting point.

But as long as we define that mechanism now. Give the transparency to the market. I provide the incentive to change over time. And as long as that is reasonable, the supply chain will follow [00:30:00] for sure, because they are also reasonable.

They are under pressure. The only thing that I can't do is drive for the next 10 years towards a wall. And recognize, one meter before crashing into the wall that no one is able to do anything. That is the risk that we are facing if we blindly running into a situation, which requires solutions to be developed now.

And that's a problem for most managers. Where you're at the moment you want to fight inflation, you want to fight the recession. You want to get the transition to new technologies, right? But if you don't start working on the right systems and mechanisms that you need to provide long term incentives to support a green transition, then you probably will wake up at one point and say, that was definitely too late.

And this is, the key warning from the perspective of an economist and game theorists working in that environment. I think a lot of organisms still underestimate the part of the supply chain that is very difficult to decarbonize [00:31:00] and where where you need to start now to invest into some measures, mechanisms to be able to, to harvest the benefits of it in three, four, five years.

The difference between management and leadership. management in terms of just looking out for the immediate, trying to solve it as much as possible, managing the current status quo and leadership. Yes, you have to manage that, but you as well look out for two or three years.

And I think that's, it's a wonderful. Summary of what you just mentioned that need these leaders to actually do all that you just mentioned in terms of just setting the current target as well, thinking about the next couple of years to come and not ending up in 10 years, one meter away from the wall to just say, oops, we have a problem.

And then the wall is very, very thick and very high.

A manager, they, they look at the problem. Now a leader looks at, two, three steps further. And game theory , they think from the end.. And say, okay, what is the situation I want [00:32:00] to be in, or what is even the scenario that I want to avoid and what do I need to do today in order to make sure that I end up in the situation in which I want to be a very game theoretic.

Thought the only German, whoever won a Nobel prize in economics was Reinhard Zeltmann for exactly that kind of thinking, which in their world is called backward induction. Yeah. You're thinking from the end to try to understand what you need to do today in order to achieve that future objective.

Let me slightly change the slogan saying leaders break down the wall, right?

Okay, wrapping it up. Thank you very much, Sebastian. That was very interesting. Just a final personal question. When you look back at the last five years, which new beliefs, behaviors, or habits had a significant impact, in your life.

Anything that you can share with me topic?

think this is one thing which was always a habit, but which I'm more [00:33:00] convinced than ever that I will not give it up, which is being brutally honest. It doesn't help to tell clients things they want to hear. If someone is not willing to listen to an outside perspective, also to a critical opinion, then you shouldn't work with other people.

And this is what drives. Everything that I'm doing I. I had a lot of good experience with that, and people who accept that kind of open and critical dialogue are typically getting much better results than people who just want to have people that tell them what they want to hear.

So, being honest, sometimes brutally honest helps. Not only a professional life, but also in your private life, something that bothers you with friends family, then tell them, and you probably get quicker and better to a solution that they're not talking about it

That's my, one of my biggest, learnings where I get reassured that, this is something that I should keep as a [00:34:00] leader.

Sebastian, thank you very much for joining the Supply Chain Dialogues.

Perfect. Thank you, Daniel. Thanks for having me.

We hope that you enjoyed this week's episode of the supply chain dialogues. If you did, please subscribe. If you're not already done that before. And share it with a colleague friend or any decision-makers, you know, either in your company or in your local regional or country government. Beside getting listeners to take a new angle. At old challenges, the higher, the amount of subscribers we have, the easier it is for us to have interesting leaders like Dr. Sebastian Moritz it's to come. As a guest. If you'd like to reach out TWS Partners, to help you on how to achieve net zero emissions in your company in the next years or any other major nut you have to crack like. Different kinds of negotiations, behavioral economics, war gaming, matching markets, Ramp-down Management. And organization development. Check out their website, linked [00:35:00] to as well in the show notes or click on the contact button to send them an email. And if you may please mention that you heard about them here at the supply chain dialogues. Podcast .

And with that. Be safe, be bold and see you next week.