Host19:10
For the fertility and the financial piece, and even the emotional piece, it's outsourced because we want to respect people's privacy. Some people might not feel comfortable, although we are really creating it. Ferring is a family, people are open and talking more and more about fertility issues. In my previous employment, I would not have dared discussing it, but here that's our business. So if we're not open about it and inclusive about it, then shame on us. But we still want to keep privacy, so we are partnering with Carrot globally and Progeny in the US. Basically, our employees have all the contact details, they deal directly with those external providers. So we ensure that we are legally compliant. If we go to surrogacy, we're not being exposed. We're working with hospitals or agencies that are well-governed. So that's outsourced, we pay for it. All of that piece we are partnering with global providers. It's too complicated. For people who want to do that, we've used Carrot and Progeny. There are others, so I'm not endorsing Carrot and Progeny, and they have multiple services underneath those umbrellas. You call them, and they direct you to psychological support, physical needs, whatever it is, because we have a long list of offerings they cover. And we have actually, that's something that very few people did, but a president who's right behind it. Honestly, part of your question: how did you get it approved? I think our whole executive committee, our whole president, fully behind it. And we've even gone for no limits. So you could have four, five, six surrogacies, which is extremely expensive. We might review later, but at the moment, if we want to be the leader, it's uncapped. People who can't afford it could cap it. You don't need to go all the way. For companies who want to look at it, there is a way. There is a significant cost, but if they can't afford that full cost, they can start the journey somewhere. They can still partner with external suppliers or providers and give them a different brief, but they can still start the journey. Not because you can't get all the way there, even starting that journey sends a very positive message to the employees. Our engagement, our retention. I've got four or five employees who say, 'I will stay.' Some out of age, but I said, 'I'm so proud of what we're doing.' For me, that's one of the reasons I'm staying. So it's well-being, it's engagement, it's also part of the retention. Put a cost on retention. I'm putting my CFO hat on. The negotiation that we had to do a little bit to justify the cost: cost of retention and engagement numbers. If you look at that cost, it outweighs the costs. The turnover costs, if you measure that. But to answer the second part of your question, Chris, there is a cost for sure. What we've done, and as I said, the president has been very supportive. I've got to give him all the credit. The team behind it, a cross-functional team led by HR and finance and loads of other functions, helped drive that. I don't want to take anything away from them because it was outstanding. But without the support of our president, who our original brief was even lower, and he said, 'Well, what would it take for us to be leaders? Well, six months. Okay, go for it.' And it was the easiest sell at the executive team meeting, the easiest sell at the board. And we've decided to centralize that cost because if you leave it with a country, if it's a local cost, you give those who are already reluctant from a cultural standpoint an excuse: 'I'd love to do it, but I can't afford it.' So we wanted to remove that barrier. If you're not doing it now, you have no excuse. You don't have the excuse of the money because we're paying for it. But there's a cost that we ring-fenced.