Host
- Philippa Lamb
Guests
- Andrew Pepper-Parsons, Director of Policy and Communications, Protect
- Brendan Weekes, Associate Director, S&W
Transcript
Philippa Lamb: Welcome to Behind the Numbers. Today, whistle-blowing. Fascinatingly, 43% of all occupational fraud cases in Western Europe come to light thanks to whistle-blowers. And it’s not just fraud that employees expose; all sorts of wrongdoing, from actively dangerous negligence to common or garden poor management, comes to light thanks to tips from people inside organisations. But it’s what happens next that stops more people from speaking up. We’ve all seen those media stories about whistle-blowers being victimised or even forced out of their jobs. So looking the other way – that can definitely feel like the safest option.
Andrew Pepper-Parsons: There was a colleague I worked with who said we should probably be counsellors alongside legal advisers. So it can be incredibly difficult, and there’s not always that kind of support – emotional support – out there that does exist.
Brendan Weekes: Certainly in the fraud space, we’ve got well-meaning employees who see something going wrong within the organisation – an organisation that they tend to care about, and so they want to be part of the resolution process. Without those brave individuals, those people who are spotting something that is wrong, the organisation is not going to recover.
PL: Now, though, the new Failure to Prevent Fraud offence will mandate clear whistle-blowing policies from employers, and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and HMRC are both looking at schemes to incentivise whistle-blowers. In the US and Canada, they already do that with cash rewards. So what’s the best way forward here, and what should employers be doing? Brendan Weekes is a forensic accountant for S&W and a member of the Fraud Advisory Panel, and Andrew Pepper-Parsons is Director of Policy and Communications for the whistle-blower charity Protect. They’re both here – thanks for being with us.
BW: You’re welcome.
APP: Thank you very much.
PL: Andrew, thinking about the experience of being a whistle-blower. Are you advising employers about whistle-blowing? You support whistle-blowers – what sort of problems do they tend to run into when they report something?
APP: I think there are some commonalities, some universal things that happen across all sectors that we see on the advice line. So, just for context, we take 3,000 calls a year from all different sectors and industries and generally what we see – and this is really highlighting the sort of problems that exist, rather than maybe the experience of all whistle-blowers, which I’m sure we can get into a bit later in the podcast – but this is really the problem that people experience, and it’s really what you see in the media, which is 40% of our callers say they are ignored; 70% of our callers say they are victimised, which means they’ve been dismissed, or they’ve been bullied by managers or forced out in some kind of way – resigned. And that is the experience, and it is combination of those two things. So whistle-blowing can be incredibly difficult in that situation, because you’re usually challenging someone more powerful. And what we see typically is that there is – I think there’s a lot of debate about encouraging more whistle-blowers to come forward – but what we see is people do blow the whistle, they do go to their employer, that’s what we find on the advice line; most people have tried to raise the concern before they speak to us, Protect, they’re not coming up to us before they sort of think about raising concerns. And then the reaction – we have a problem with the reaction from employers, really. That’s the issue at the moment, I would say.
I don’t think people go out thinking they’re going to be a whistle-blower. They usually see something that’s gone wrong. They suddenly see some sort of illegality. They’ve witnessed something that worries them, and they want to believe their employer is going to do something about it. They bring it forward. And that’s when the kind of problems can arise. And sometimes that ignored figure can mean that the employer has maybe taken action, but not communicated it back to them – to the whistle-blower. It can be, straight up, be a disagreement about what’s happened. But on the victimisation side, that can be very difficult, and that can be sometimes the employer is put in the middle of a situation, if it’s between managment and worker, but in other situations, it’s kind of just a straight-up reaction to what they’ve witnessed, really.
PL: What sort of emotional state do they tend to be in when they come to you? They’re angry?
APP: Yeah, all kinds. I think it is probably up there as some of the most stressful things that someone will go through, if they’re victimised, they feel like, no, they’ve not been listened to. There is a proportion of people that blow the whistle and nothing happens, right? The issue is either dealt with or they don’t take that kind of trauma. But it is traumatic, and there was a colleague I worked with who said we should probably be counsellors alongside legal advisers. So yeah, it can be incredibly difficult, and there’s not always that kind of support – emotional support – out there that does exist. Some employers put that in place, and it’s becoming more of a recognised feature.
PL: Brendan, this is why we tend to associate the term whistle-blowing with bad outcomes, don’t we? It’s a very loaded term. But I’m thinking, is the opposite just as true, that actually people blow the whistle and the outcome is a good outcome?
BW: Yes, definitely. So certainly in the fraud space, we’ve got well-meaning employees who see something going wrong within the organisation – an organisation that they tend to care about, and so they want to be part of the resolution process. Without those brave individuals, those people who are spotting something that is wrong, the organisation is not going to recover or is going to have a huge loss. There’s countless examples that I’ve had in my career where the impact on the morale of a business from fraud has been significant. It’s been more costly to the organisation than the financial amount that’s been lost.
PL: Yeah, not something that’s much discussed, that. I wonder who most of these people are? Do they tend to be senior people or junior people? Is there any sort of norm?
BW: That’s a, it’s a very good question. And I kind of cast my mind to the big collapses of recent years, the Carillions, the Patisseries – and all of this is in a hypothetical – Patisserie Valerie, Wirecard, where were the people who were aware of the actions that senior management were taking or alleged to have taken in some instances? Generally, most staff are good people. There’s an old saying that one of my former mentors used to say, that one of the best ways to combat fraud is to mobilise the honest majority.
PL: People feel a sense of ownership about the organisation they work for?
BW: Correct. Especially in the charity space, these people give up their time for lower wages than they could receive in the private sector. They care about the cause in most cases, and get really passionate about, “How dare this person take advantage of us?” But even in the corporate world, I’ve worked for some big organisations where it’s very much focused on, “We are a part of Company X. We live and breathe Company X’s culture. We want to see us succeed,” And so there’s this sort of incentive to be the company. And whether that’s cult-like or not is another question, but it’s a lot of people that I come across – the honest majority really care about the organisation.
PL: They want to defend it?
BW: Yes, yeah.
PL: Does that chime with your experience, Andrew?
APP: Yeah, absolutely. I don’t think there are many people that go into a workplace and kind of assume that their employer isn’t going to deal with whatever issue that they come across, whatever thing they might witness. I do think that does exist, and that’s why we have regulators, why we have the ability and the sort of whistle-blowing protection to reach out to regulators, because that sometimes is the case, as we have these sort of corrupt employers, but that’s not the majority. So most organisations go down a wrong path, or there is, you know, something has gone wrong that needs to be rectified. But going back to the point about Carillion is really interesting, because that was a situation where the culture really did, probably, did stop people from raising concerns. Because the fact is, people didn’t come forward, and it was only after media reports and select committee reports looked into it, they realised there were staff that were concerned about what was going on, were too afraid to come forward. And so that is part of this kind of push, I think, to kind of expect more from employers – and we have a much better understanding of what employers should have in place.
PL: I mean, right now, do most employers at least have some sort of policy, even if it’s not really fit for purpose?
APP: Yes, and that’s the easy bit, because, yeah – I mean, having a policy is the sort of default, I think. And there are too many organisations that don’t have that in place. But it’s what sits around that policy that’s really important. And culture is such a nebulous term, but it is actually – when you come down to it – it’s about how well the managers are trained. You know, what are the attitudes of the senior managers, that type of thing? You know, how comfortable are the organisations about external disclosures, for instance? Those are the kind of touch points that I think create a better culture, which can mean that flow of information from staff is going to come.
PL: So Brendan, the SFO director, Nick Ephgrave, he’s floated this reward scheme for whistle-blowers idea. Do we know what that might look like?
BW: We don’t at the moment. It’s been something that Nick has spoken about since his first inaugural address at RUSI [Royal United Services Institute] several years ago. It’s very aspirational. He’s got RUSI doing some research around it. I suspect it might mirror what’s in the US and Canada at the moment. We know that HMRC also kind of talked about implementing or formalising a reward scheme. I don’t like the word reward, because I think there’s an element of compensation in this. You as an individual – and again, I’m going to jump into this hypothetical Carillion case – if you’re an accountant in Carillion, you notify the powers that be of the issues behind that. It’s going to be very challenging for you to find work again. You will be tarred with your connection with them, even if you are seen to be doing the right thing. There are whistle-blowers that I have met – not as many as Andrew, but people who have had to reset their life, reset their career aspirations, because they’ve done the right thing. That comes with quite a high cost.
PL: And the fact that we’re talking about cash rewards, whatever the term we want to use is, it’s a tacit admission that the outcomes are generally – well, not uncommonly – going to be bad? Which is a problem in itself, isn’t it? Because money is not necessarily going to compensate you in every way for lack of career progression or whatever it might be, or actually not be able to work in the sector again.
BW: Correct.
APP: I just want to step in, just to say – because I maybe take a different view to Brendan just on the compensation point – because I don’t actually see the reward scheme as compensation; because I think it’s quite a different system. We have a compensation scheme in the UK. It’s much maligned, but the Public Interest Disclosure Act, it is part of employment law. It covers all sectors and industries, and it doesn’t have a cap on damages, which is very unusual in employment law.
PL: And that’s through a tribunal.
APP: That’s through a tribunal, yeah, and like I say, I could give you an example, like a nurse, an NHS nurse, has received over £1m because they’ve lost their career. So I think the reward scheme, to my mind, is very much beneficial to the regulator, because it’s probably a very effective way of getting as much information as they can through their kind of systems. I don’t know if it’s always going to be for the benefit of the whistle-blower, which sounds odd, because it’s gonna be a massive amount of money that’s been awarded. But if you look to Canada and America, very few people actually get access to that kind of money. You have to have come forward with unique information that leads to enforcement. And I agree completely with Brendan that the SFO are going down that US route. So that’s really sort of key.
PL: How does the US scheme work? Is it the same in US and Canada, or do they have different schemes?
APP: I understand so, yeah.
PL: OK, so if we look at the US, how do they do it?
BW: They do it as a percentage of the money that’s been generated from penalties, I understand, and that could be up to 15 to 30%. I suppose the reality is, it really depends on how much you’re contributing to the case.
PL: That’s not necessarily easy to quantify, is it?
BW: Correct. So you can imagine a scenario where you, as an individual, think that you have good intelligence, you provide that intelligence, and the SFO will turn around and say, potentially, sorry, that’s not enough.
PL: We kind of knew that already. Someone else has already told us.
BW: Correct. And then you’re in a situation where you’re tarred with the wrongdoing, and you’ve lost your career. I mean, within the accounting space, I don’t want to say I wake up at three o’clock in the morning with night sweats from nightmares thinking about all the potential things that we could do wrong, but I know that if there is some allegation of misconduct to a regulated accountant, that’s career ending. You’re not going to come back from that, from a career perspective.
PL: So, anonymity – do these schemes try to offer anonymity to whistle-blowers? Or is that just not a possibility?
APP: That’s my understanding. Yeah, I think that can be an option. I think you need to have a lawyer involved. But I think that’s a key – there’s a key consideration for the SFO system, how they incorporate that into the system, especially if it goes to court, because I think in the US, there’s a high proportion of settlements between the organisations. So I think that this is maybe wandering away a little bit from whistle-blowing – it’s kind of how the scheme works overall. But that, I think, just to put it back to whistle-blowing, is the key way in my experience that regulators – so I use regulator very broadly – that’s how they protect whistle-blowers. They don’t have an employment relationship, so that what I mean is an employer can protect a whistle-blower by taking action against people who are victimising them, right? So there’s kind of a different relationship with a regulator, because the regulators can’t always step in and do that kind of action. So their protection is really the ability to shield them and protect their identity. So I think that anonymity is going to be quite key, and I think how that works with the enforcement piece is going to be quite important. But the SFO already deal with whistle-blowers, so what we’re adding in here is like a money element.
PL: But presumably some forms of whistle-blowing information are so specific that it’s self-evident who brings them forward?
BW: There’s another issue which I think we should be mindful of, and that is the disclosure obligations of a prosecutor. And I can’t see how, currently, the SFO’s duty to disclose information to the defendant is going to allow for anonymity. There is that sort of broad concept as well, which is the right to face your accuser. I don’t know if that’s enshrined in UK law, I’m not a lawyer, but there is that sort of broad principle. You want to see what the prosecution, the accusers, are saying. While it’d be great to have that anonymity, we have to be fair to the defence.
PL: The way of the process. So I think what this conversation is telling us is, it’s vexed, isn’t it, but we think we will see a system here, from the SFO?
BW: Yeah, that’s what’s going to happen.
PL: Do we have any sort of sense of time frame?
APP: My understanding is that I think the SFO, as Brendan says, they’re setting up, trying to set up a pilot scheme, and it’s part of the review that the Home Office is doing into fraud. And HMRC have already announced it – that they’re kind of bringing in an asking for tax evasion. So I think it’s here, I think, and my conversations with politicians as well – they feel like the Treasury are keen to have these things in place where it’s appropriate.
PL: And now, of course, we’ve got this new Failure to Prevent Fraud offence for employers, Brendan, so that’s directly going to force this issue, isn’t it?
BW: Yes. So just to summarise, the Failure to Prevent Fraud holds large corporates accountable for the actions of their associated persons – associated persons being employees, agents, subsidiaries, and those people who act on behalf of the organisation.
PL: Supply chain?
BW: Including supply chain, and the organisation will have a defence, and that is that they have reasonable procedures in place to prevent that fraud. So the example would be, you’ve got a salesman on a golf course lying to secure a sale. What controls and procedures did the company have, or the organisation have, to prevent that misrepresentation or to remedy that misrepresentation? Part of the defences, the controls and procedures that you would expect to see, include top-level commitments. So culture is a huge thing. Whereas you’ve previously mentioned, Carillion had a very toxic culture, aggressive culture, which didn’t allow for speak-up. You would expect a company with reasonable procedures in place to have an open culture, one that pushes honesty and integrity as part of its core values, and that includes whistle-blowing, yeah, so there’s a communication element of the controls and procedures, and that’s got to be the organisation telling its associated persons, “If you see something,” and I hate to steal this phrase from TFL, “See something, say something, sort it.” Right? It’s very much that sort of mantra.
PL: So they’re going to need evidence of this, presumably, in order to make that defence, if it came to it – they’re going to need evidence of policies and evidence that they’ve actually taken reasonable steps.
BW: Absolutely. It starts with a risk assessment first. And this isn’t an actor podcast, it’s very much on the whistle-blowing side. But I would expect a reasonable company to have identified its risks, put in place controls and procedures to prevent those risks from occurring or minimise the impact of those risks. And part of those procedures would be, we’ve received a whistle-blowing report; this is how we’ve taken action to deal with that issue.
PL: So, Andrew, do you think that’s going to motivate companies to think about this harder?
APP: I think this is the missing piece for us at Protect, in the sense that we’ve spoken for a long time about how the current way that whistle-blowing protection works, or the laws that exist around whistle-blowing, is based on the whistle-blower and their kind of victimisation or whether they lose their job, which is really important. But there’s very little about what the employer should have in place outside of sort of particular actions from regulators like the Financial Conduct Authority. So as Brendan’s really eloquently laid out, that is what good organisations have in place at the moment. So I think setting that standard in legal terms and expecting more from larger employers in this case is really, I think, really key, and it follows what existing best practice looks like, both from a British standpoint and internationally.
PL: So that’s really encouraging. And accountants, of course, accountants already have an obligation to report wrongdoing?
BW: That’s correct, and it’s one of the parts of our ethical responsibilities that we tend to forget. It’s Non-Compliance with Laws and Regulations – or affectionately called NOCLAR. And it’s not only ICAEW who have this as part of their code of conduct. It’s also the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants, and that includes the ACCA, CIMA and various other organisations globally. But effectively, the objectives of NOCLAR are to get the accountant to comply with the principles of integrity and professional behaviour, alert management where appropriate, so they can deal with the consequences of the non-compliance, deter further non-compliance and to take further action as appropriate in the public interest. So NOCLAR really focuses on the types of misconduct which could impact the financial statements or otherwise significantly impact a business. That includes fraud and financial crime.
PL: That brings me to a question – because I was looking at the global report from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, and I pulled out a figure there that, I must say, did surprise me. That was that was 3% of organised fraud is exposed by external audit in Western Europe. So not a big number, I think we can all agree; and 4% is exposed by accidents. Which rather suggests more needs to be done, does it?
BW: I suppose there’s two aspects to look at this. Fraud is not as endemic as the practitioners think it is, or, auditors are not doing sufficient work to detect fraud.
PL: Does their training equipment to do that?
BW: I don’t think so. This is where I get slightly controversial. I’m a massive proponent of doing more in relation to the Auditor’s Standard specifically related to the detection of fraud and financial statements, but that kind of focuses on material fraud only – so fraud that’s going to impact the financial statements in a significant way. That’s not Joe Blogs taking money out of petty cash. It’s more likely to be senior management doing something à la Carillion, à la Patisserie Valerie. So organisations can still fall foul of the failure to prevent fraud, as set out in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, and there are other corporate offences as well which the organisation could fall foul of.
There are some very specific nuances with money laundering. If there is a misrepresentation in the supply chain, and management are aware, or should have known, then you’ve got a money laundering situation, and you’ve got a company that’s taking in laundered funds and then arguably converting those laundered funds. From an audit perspective, how are they supposed to know all of this? Is there enough scepticism in the work that they’re doing, knowledge in the work that they’re doing, resources available to them, to raise these things so they can be alive to these sort of activities as misconduct during the course of their audit? It may be that we’ve got as a pre-podcast auditors finding that a payment isn’t supported by documentation, and then assuming that’s an error, rather than actually it’s the financial controller who is creating payments to look like it’s going to a legitimate supplier, but is actually using those payments to personally enrich themselves.
PL: Ethics underpins all this, doesn’t it? And the ACA, the new ACA, very much focuses on ethics. There’s now a direct exam in the new ACA for accountants, so that sense of an ethical training driving better behaviour here, Andrew – setting aside the question of just accountants, just generally, that must underpin it all?
APP: Yeah, I think training is really key in two aspects. I think typically, what we see at Protect, what we offer – we work with organisations, offer training and professional services. We’re unique as a charity, in the sense, that’s how we fund ourselves. So we have some experience working with organisations. I would say that typically, the training that’s offered is to managers; those that are designated contacts – whistle-blowing champions – are quite senior level, other whistle-blowing teams that run the day-to-day operations and sort of maybe line managers. What we see less of is staff speaking to staff, training staff on how to raise concerns. But I think it is really important because, you know, whistle-blowing doesn’t happen every day, but when it does happen, it can be really dramatic, and it can be really important. So being able to deal and pick up and communicate and talk to a whistle-blower when they come forward – or for a whistle-blower, or for just a member of staff, to know what exists and what the process is – is really important.
PL: So this is about company values. This is about the ethical framework of the whole organisation and leading to the culture.
BW: Yeah, very much, going back to those principles which form part of a company’s reasonable defences for the failure to prevent fraud, if you are pushing as part of your cultural values, honesty and integrity, throughout…
PL: Which most organisations do now?
BW: Which most organisations do and should – there’s some fantastic examples out there, especially in the charity space, people who want to do right – but you’re pushing that out. I struggle to see a scenario where you’ve got a prosecutor on the other side saying that’s not reasonable. So I’m all for pushing: “We’re an honest organisation with integrity. If you see something that is wrong, please report it through our appropriate means – a whistle-blowing report line, speak to your line manager, speak to this independent individual who will be able to address your concerns anonymously.”
PL: Well, maybe we should wrap this up by talking about what good looks like. I know you both have examples of organisations that you think do this really well, disseminate this, this idea, have good procedures in place. So tell us about those.
APP: Just to kind of lay a bit of context, I think one of the areas that we find employers struggle with the most is staff engagement, like how to communicate. I think training programmes are great and essential, but being able to communicate what you know, the intentions of whistle-blowing arrangements and how they work on a wider plane, really, or a wider way, is really important.
PL: Or more appealing?
APP: Or more appealing – exactly. So a really good example, which was in the Committee on Standards in Public Life from Wellcome Trust, was – they called it ‘The Only Way is Ethics’ and they basically created a programme around, I think – and this is a good way of doing it – around the kind of risks that exist for the Wellcome Trust. So, for example, they did modern slavery, that sort of thing. They tied it to what people might witness in the workplace. And that’s how they talked about whistle-blowing. Because with the best will in the world – I work at whistle-blowing. I really like my job, but it is quite dry, it is quite abstract. It’s quite boring for some people, I think, a bit worthy, exactly, or scary – you can really scare somebody, which is not what you want to go for. So I think grounding it in, in that kind of communications really, I think, is really key.
We’ve also seen – I think it was Rio Tinto, it’s the mining company – Ask Polly. They rebranded their whole sort of bribery and kind of reporting line, and they called it Ask Polly, because that was the name of the director who had headed up the function. I think that’s a good example of humanising the process. I think actually what it comes down to is thinking about the staff make-up and kind of building a message that’s kind of inclusive and kind of talk to the different groups.
Just the final example is, we know of a large bank that, and I think this is really key, spoke to the various staff groups – you know, the sort of protected characteristic groups within their organisation, and tried to get to understand their kind of experience of working within the organisation, and again, moulding the message along those kind of lines as well. So making sure, again, that, you know, it’s an inclusive kind of system, and people can raise concerns.
PL: Brendan, how do you make it land? How do you do that? How do you, you know – it should be champions? Should it be humour? I mean, what lands with people, so it isn’t just another piece of workplace training?
BW: That is the key question, right? And I don’t know if I will have the answers to that, because the approach is going to differ in various different organisations. Looking at accounting firms – there’s almost a fear, I think, in accounting firms, it’s: “This is my career. I need to look after myself and ensure that I am able to be an accountant for as long as I want to be an accountant.” Within the charity space, I see a different view: “This is our charity. We need to all kind of band together to do the best we can. Yes, Brendan’s annoying us with all this regulation stuff and ethics and stuff like that, but I can see the value in it.”
And I had a recent example of a manufacturing company where senior management run the business and everyone else is operating machinery. Do the machinery people need to understand that there’s a whistle-blowing facility? Absolutely, because – not necessarily restricted to fraud – there could still be concerns. So how we get that buy-in from them really depends on the culture on the on the shop floor, so to speak. Health and safety has tons and tons of whistle-blowing allegations or near misses that need to be passed through the organisation. Organisations could get into trouble if they don’t do enough to ensure the safety of their employees. So it’s – yeah, you’ve asked, “How long is a piece of string?” So it’s quite challenging.
PL: But it sounds like, from what you’re both saying, being imaginative and understanding the organisation and the vibe of the organisation you’re working in is really key, because otherwise it is just more training, isn’t it?
APP: Yeah. And I think one of the challenges for people in my position is that I think a lot of the guidance and standards are geared, actually, for very large organisations that have layers. So the Financial Conduct Authority requires banks to have whistle-blowing champions and a whistle-blowing team and all this kind of stuff. But it is relevant to the smaller and medium-sized organisations that don’t necessarily need a dedicated function, but they do, as Brendan said, have to have the right attitude after the buy-in. They have to recognise that people may not want to go through their line management. So having an independent place that they can go to raise concerns – I think every organisation can set those kind of things up.
PL: And it doesn’t need to be that complicated, does it? I mean, we’ve talked about this on the podcast before, and I remember an expert saying, you know, anonymous tip-off boxes – they’re great, you know; just somewhere where people can, literally, old-school, write something down a bit of paper, put it in a box, and walk away and just know that that’s happened. But he did make the point that he didn’t want to put it under a camera, which apparently he had seen. So, yeah, it can be that kind of – it doesn’t need to be over-engineered?
BW: It doesn’t. I mean, one of the worst things I could imagine is, if you’re a machine operator and then are asked by your manager to sit in on an hour- or two-hour long meeting about ethics, honesty and integrity. It doesn’t need to be that complicated. I think if you’re doing: “Listen, we’re an organisation that expects everyone to be honest, act with integrity. If you see something that’s wrong, please let us know about it. Here are some examples of bad behaviour that we’re looking out for.” That’s, what, 10 minutes, 15 minutes?
PL: And if you’re not sure, here’s someone you can talk to.
BW: Exactly. People like their job security. There’s no one who I’ve met who said I don’t need a job. Everyone kind of needs work, either financially or to keep them busy during the day. There’s some sort of motivation for them being there and they don’t want to lose that. That’s the honest majority that’s there. So, you know, we’re protecting the organisation. We’re protecting you. We’re protecting the world dramatically. And let’s all face the same direction.
PL: I think that’s very positive way to close it, isn’t it? Thanks very much indeed. Really, really interesting insight on that.
That’s it for this episode. We will be digging deeper into this in our next Insights episode, Paul Guess from CABA will be telling us about the mental health cost that highlighting wrongdoing can involve – Andrew talked about this. He’ll be talking us through the support and guidance available to ICAEW members who are worried about something going on at work and wondering what to do about it. In the meantime, you’ll find a link to ICAEW support services for members in the show notes. So if this is a live issue for you right now, that’s a good place to start.
If you’d like to log listening to this podcast as CPD, no problem – you can do that for every single episode you hear at icaew.com. Thanks for being with us.
