Transcript provided by Kensho.

Lindsey Hall: I'm Lindsey Hall.

Esther Whieldon: And I’m Esther Whieldon.

Lindsey Hall: Welcome to All Things Sustainable, a podcast from S&P Global. As your hosts, we'll dive into all the sustainability topics that are reshaping the business world.

Lindsey Hall: Jennifer, welcome back.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Well, thank you for having me. I didn't actually realize I was coming to game show, but why not?

Lindsey Hall: Well, Jennifer, as our senior regulations and standards researcher, I am confident that you've got this. So we're calling this quiz show segment, name that acronym. Are you ready?

Jennifer Laidlaw: I hope so.

Lindsey Hall: Okay. Here we go. Rapid fire. CSRD.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive.

Lindsey Hall: CSDDD.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.

Lindsey Hall: NFRD.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Let me try and remember this. The Non-Financial Reporting Directive.

Lindsey Hall: Yes. ESRS.

Jennifer Laidlaw: European Sustainability Reporting Standards.

Lindsey Hall: Well done. So as our listeners can hear, there's a lot to keep up with. And today, we're diving into efforts from Europe to simplify some of this landscape.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Regulation and disclosures have been a big part of the sustainability discussion in recent years as investors have been increasingly asking companies to provide more consistent, comparable, and reliable information on sustainability-related risks and impacts. And Europe has been particularly active on this front.

As we just heard from Jennifer, the EU has adopted several sustainability reporting rules, including the CSRD, the CSDDD and the EU taxonomy, which is a classification system of sustainable economic activities.

But on February 26, big news, the European Commission announced proposals to simplify those rules as part of a drive to slash red tape, particularly for small- and medium-sized enterprises or SMEs. So Jennifer, what should our audience understand about the proposed changes?

So the European Commission has proposed measures to simplify the CSRD, the CSDDD and the EU taxonomy. These are legislative acts that were adopted quite recently and are being gradually phased in.

The plans are part of a target set by the commission to reduce the overall reporting burden for companies by at least 25% and for SMEs by at least 35% by the end of the commission's current mandate in 2029.

They aim to sharply reduce the number of companies and scope of the CSRD, the number of data points companies must report on and would postpone some reporting requirements. According to the commission, the proposals would save an estimated EUR 6.3 billion in annual administrative costs and generate EUR 50 billion in public and private investments.

Lindsey Hall: And when can we expect a decision about these changes? What's next?

Jennifer Laidlaw: Now we have to remember that these are proposals, so they can change. We'll dive into the legislative process to explain to our listeners how the process will work with our first guest, Marc Rotter, counsel at law firm Ropes and Gray. Before we get to that particular point, I asked him to give us an overview of the proposals and how companies will be impacted. So you'll hear us talk about the ESRS.

So as we heard before, that's the European Sustainability Reporting Standards, which is actually the reporting framework for the CSRD. And for yet another acronym, we have the ISSB. So that's the International Sustainability Standards Board, which has developed its own sustainability standards with a global reach. Here's Marc.

Marc Rotter: So the Omnibus proposal suggests a significant number of fairly important changes to CSRD, CSDDD and the taxonomy. With respect to CSRD, the biggest headline change is the commission is proposing a two-year delay for reporting requirements for what they call Wave 2 and Wave 3 companies.

So Wave 2 companies are companies that are not listed on an EU regulated exchange and that are otherwise not public interest entities, but that meet the definition of large undertaking in the EU. That's where most large U.S. and other multinational companies are getting caught right now because they have EU undertakings that are EU subsidiaries that meet the definition of large undertaking under the CSRD and accounting directive.

So that two-year delay is meaningful there. Wave 3 is largely listed small and medium-sized enterprises in the EU. Again, they would also benefit from a two-year delay. There's no relief proposed for what folks refer to as Wave 1 companies, which are the companies that are public interest entities in the EU, for example, companies listed on EU regulated exchanges.

Those companies have already begun reporting in many jurisdictions and would need to continue to do so. In addition to the two-year delay, there's a significant change in the scope of companies that would be required to report under the CSRD. The commission has estimated that their proposal would reduce the number of companies needed to report by something like 80%.

So currently, under the CSRD, companies are required to report if they meet two out of three criteria on an income test, balance sheet test and an employee test. The current threshold for the employee test is 250 employees. The Omnibus would change that significantly and change the way the tests work generally such that in order to be in scope as a large undertaking, you would need to have at least 1,000 employees plus meet either the balance sheet or turnover tests.

And the balance sheet and turnover test themselves are not proposed to be changed. As a result of those changes, Wave 3 report would be taken out entirely if that change in scope is adopted. The Omnibus would reduce the number of companies required to report under the EU taxonomy. Under the current CSRD as it currently stands, all CSRD reporting companies are required to report under the EU taxonomy.

The Omnibus would change that, making taxonomy reporting voluntary for companies with less than $450 million of turnover. Again, that's a significant change that would substantially simplify CSRD reporting for a number of companies.

The Omnibus contemplates or the PC statements that went along with the Omnibus contemplate that the European Commission will issue revised ESRSs that simplify sustainability reporting obligations generally for CSRD reporting companies.

The commission indicated that those changes would be focused on reducing data points generally to focus on those most important to general sustainability reporting and focusing on quantitative rather than qualitative data points. In addition to that, the commission has also indicated that it's going to include new guidance around materiality in the ESRSs.

And this is a pretty important point. So prior to the Omnibus coming out, there was significant speculation that the commission might back away from how materiality currently works under the CSRD. And as I'm sure most listeners know, the CSRD, unlike many other mandatory reporting regimes, requires folks to report based on a double materiality analysis, meaning information needs to be reported if it's either financially material or if it's impact material.

The Omnibus does not actually change that approach with a view towards making so companies do not need to spend disproportionate resources on a materiality analysis. There are some significant changes proposed to CSDDD as well.

Most notable among them are a one-year delay in implementation, a change in how risk assessments would be conducted that would limit the requirement to identify and assess actual and potential adverse impacts to direct business partners.

So Tier 1 with an in-depth assessment only required with respect to indirect partners, the company has plausible information that suggests adverse impacts may arise at that level with changes to how risk mitigation and enforcement could work under the CSDDD.

Jennifer Laidlaw: One of the big questions as well that people have is the timeline for the legislative process. If you could maybe just walk us through that because I think a lot of our listeners probably aren't familiar with that.

Marc Rotter: Yes, that's going to be a key point here. And unfortunately, there's still a lot of uncertainty around it. So the way this will work is the commission proposes the Omnibus. It would then need to be agreed to by the European Parliament and Council.

As part of that process, there will be discussion between those three bodies and the proposals in the Omnibus could change as a result of those discussions. Frankly, there is no set timeline for when any of those bodies, when the parliament or Council would need to act on the Omnibus.

The European Commission does in its public statements ask the Parliament Council to prioritize this. And notably, one of the things they did when proposing the Omnibus is intended to facilitate quick action on part of it. And that's specifically with respect to the two-year delay that I spoke to at the outset.

So the way the Omnibus was set up, it was actually set up as two separate instruments, two separate directives or pieces of legislation, one just handling that timing delay for CSRD and the other handling the other changes that I spoke to.

The reason for that was to facilitate a faster enactment by Parliament and Council of the proposed two-year delay to give companies some certainty as to reporting timelines and I suspect to take some of the pressure off agreeing to the other changes proposed in the Omnibus.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Is there any way that we can try and have some kind of idea of how long this process might take?

Marc Rotter: It's tough to really say with a lot of certainty how much time the process will take. I think it's more likely to be months than weeks. So it's important to keep in mind that even after the European Council and Parliament Act, these changes would still need to be addressed at the member state level through transposition, meaning taking the directive and turning it into national law at the member state level. That's also a process that could take some time.

For example, for CSRD generally, there was a deadline set to have transposition completed by the middle of last year. And there are still several countries that have not yet transposed. And so I think this is going to be a longer process rather than for an immediate one.

But I think what we've seen so far is an important first step towards simplifying sustainability obligations in the EU. And I think there's some optimism that European bodies will at least attempt to prioritize and move quickly on given the upcoming deadlines under the current law.

Jennifer Laidlaw: With these proposals, we don't know how long this is going to take. And I wonder what impact is this going to have on companies, for example, that have to report at the moment, should they just keep calm and carry on?

Marc Rotter: Yes, that's the big question. I think it really depends on the company, where they are in the process, what they're using the process for and what other obligations they're subject to. And to break that down a little bit, I think the situation is different for a large company that would be scoped in even under the new scoping standards proposed by the Omnibus than for smaller companies that if the Omnibus is adopted, might be scoped out.

I think it also depends on where companies are in the process. We're working with a number of clients that have spent significant resources conducting a double materiality analysis, have built up a lot of expertise internally as to what the CSRD requires, what the ESRSs require and sustainability reporting generally.

And I think there is some hesitation to stop short and let that sort of expertise state away and the analyses that have been done become stale. I think that's different than for some other companies that might be in a different place with respect to their sustainability reporting journey. I also think companies need to think about what else they're using this process for.

Some companies are also using this -- the double materiality analysis process as a way to reevaluate it feed into their enterprise risk management and voluntary sustainability reporting. For those companies that are using this process for other purposes as well, there may be more incentive to continue a pace and continue developing their double materiality analysis and the information they'll need to eventually gather and report.

The CSRD is not the only game in town with respect to sustainability reporting. Companies are going to become subject to reporting obligations in a number of other jurisdictions, including many in California, Australia, the U.K., and lots of other jurisdictions that are adopting standards based on the ISSB.

Now none of those standards are as extensive as CSRD reporting, and they're all different in some meaningful ways, including that for the most part, they focus on financial materiality rather than double materiality.

That said, there are certainly significant overlaps in the work that needs to be done for CSRD and for those other reporting regimes. So I think companies will also need to take that into account when thinking about how they'll adjust their efforts going forward in light of the Omnibus.

Jennifer Laidlaw: So in terms of the amendments that have been proposed by the European Commission, how might they impact non-EU companies?

Marc Rotter: So the CSRD affects non-EU companies in a number of ways. And I think there are sort of three key areas to focus on here. The first are multinationals with subsidiaries that would be captured in Wave 2.

There are a large number of U.S.-based and other multinationals that have significant operations in the European Union that would be required to report or that would have subsidiaries that would be required to report because those subsidiaries meet the definition of large EU undertaking.

The two-year delay is quite meaningful for those multinationals as they ramp up to prepare for sustainability reporting. And in some cases, the proposed change in scoping will also be meaningful and that it will take many companies out of Wave 2 and move them into what folks refer to as Wave 4 or the reporting for non-EU companies that have significant operations in the EU.

Under the current CSRD, non-EU companies that generate more than $150 million in turnover from the EU on a global level and that have either an EU subsidiary that is a large undertaking, listed small and medium-sized enterprise or a branch with at least $40 million in turnover would be required to begin reporting.

Under the Omnibus proposal, that would be changed to only require reporting by non-EU companies that have a large EU subsidiary and to generate at least $450 million in net turnover from the European Union, again, on a global level. So that will reduce the number of companies that need to report, but it's still going to pick up a lot of large multinationals that have significant operations in the EU.

Jennifer Laidlaw: So it's helpful to hear this legal background and perspective and this explanation of how the process will unfold. Jennifer, did you get any sense in your interviews of how this might impact investors and companies?

Yes, I think it's. I also spoke to Andreas Rasche, who is Professor of Business and Society at the Center for Sustainability at Copenhagen Business School. I asked her about the implications for the sustainable investment landscape. Here's Andreas.

Andreas Rasche: For investors that at the end of the day, it means less data by less companies. And I think it should be a legitimate concern to investors as it limits access to comparable and also reliable ESG data.

The commission has responded to this by saying there is an option to voluntarily report by those companies that fall out of scope, but I do not think that voluntary reporting will fill this gap. And there is, I think, another concern here for investors because the commission has suggested to more or less scrap the so-called sector-specific standards.

So that means that companies will not be asked to adopt such standards or that they also won't be developed in the first place. And this, again, is of concern to investors because investors often also need industry-based benchmarking.

And it also, in a sense, widens the gap here between the ISSB standard, which, to some degree, considers such industry-specific disclosures and then also the revised CSRD. And then finally, I would say the due diligence amendments, they kind of make clear that investors will not be required to undertake due diligence activities for their investments.

This was so far also not the case, but the CSDDD contained a clause in the directive, which would have made a review of the directive possible in the future to eventually kind of include that. So this will also not be there. So overall, I think pretty significant implications for the sustainable investing landscape.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Let's unpack some of the issues that you brought up. I thought it was particularly interesting what you were saying about the implications for voluntary reporting. Do you get a sense that the companies will be -- because maybe they've already started reporting according to the CSRD that they might just continue that even though it's voluntary.

This is at least what I'm hearing by some companies who kind of said, look, I mean, we are in this process now anyway. So we will move ahead, of course, with a lighter standard because the suggested voluntary standard will be much lighter.

So I think a lot of companies will keep on going on this path also because, of course, they are part of value chains very often. And there are certain requests also by value chain partners to adopt sustainability reporting and to provide relevant data. So I think it is reasonable to assume that at least some companies will continue this path. How will these amendments achieve the cost savings that the commission has estimated?

Andreas Rasche: First of all, why is the commission interested in all of this. I think it dates back actually to the end of 2023 when there were first discussions coming up that this entire sustainable finance framework is way too complicated. And you know what, actually, I agree to some extent.

Simplifications as such are actually not a bad idea and the commission was right. We needed to cut some red tape there. We needed to align some of the regulations much better. So this is what they were pushing for.

And then, of course, they received quite a lot of feedback also from national governments, which kind of made similar requests. We had a big report here in Europe last year by Mario Draghi former Head of the European Central Bank, who also pushed a lot in this direction of simplification.

And all of this then ended up with this bigger simplification agenda, which we are seeing now. And I think it is important to recognize here that it will not just be sustainability rules that are being simplified.

The European Commission will also look into further simplifications, for instance, of investment processes and for instance, also simplifications that are targeted towards so-called mid-cap companies, so midsized companies.

How will these cost savings be achieved. Mostly by moving companies out of the regulation. Also, the EU has made clear that they will not look into the possibility for extending what right now is limited assurance into reasonable assurance, which is a higher level of assurance. This will save money because limited assurance, obviously, is less expensive.

And then of course, on the CSDDD side, so the due diligence side, they limited the nature of due diligence quite a bit to only kind of direct business partners, so not along your entire value chain. And this, again, of course, saves costs on the side of companies because they simply interact with much less business partners.

Jennifer Laidlaw: And just thinking if we don't look at the euro figures in terms of like savings, what does this mean in terms of impact? Because obviously, less companies will be reporting. So what's the cost there?

Andreas Rasche: That is very difficult to answer, Jennifer, because the European Commission has published an assessment of the estimated cost savings, and they estimate EUR 4.4 billion per year on the CSRD side and around EUR 320 million per year on the CSDDD side.

But this, of course, does not include any sort of impact assessment, which you are rightly asking about. So we know actually comparatively little what exactly this will do. Of course, we know that companies will, for instance, not have as good risk information on their value chain. This is a clear impact.

But how this feeds through really, for instance, to value chain actors on the due diligence side is difficult to estimate. And also on the reporting side, I think the impact is mostly on companies themselves because the CSRD, so the reporting framework was always also a framework for management and strategic change.

It was never designed entirely as such a framework for the sake of only reporting. So I think companies, to some extent, actually lose a management tool here unless they, of course, decide to voluntarily keep on reporting.

Jennifer Laidlaw: The proposed amendments is basically to exempt companies from assessing taxonomy eligibility and alignment if they're not like financially material for their business, what kind of impact that might have on companies?

That, of course, gives companies less, again, grained information, less granular information. I think the commission has introduced quite a lot of flexibility here on the taxonomy side because companies -- quite a number of companies actually will have the possibility to only opt in if they are really affected by the taxonomy system as such and if they have material economic practices that are covered.

So in that sense, I think there is a question here again around data granularity that, again, also that has kick on effects for investors because the companies at the end of the day, will only have to assess those economic activities under the taxonomy that are really highly material. I think they put the threshold at 10%.

So if, for instance, an economic activity under the taxonomy makes up more than 10% of your turnover or of your CapEx, then you have to assess it. Otherwise, you don't have to assess it. And this, of course, loses a bit the granularity of the information.

Just to look at like some of the measures that we haven't discussed to do with this CSDDD. I was just interested in terms of monitoring because I noticed that companies will only have to monitor their due diligence measures every five years instead of annually. I just wondered why you think that change has been proposed.

Andreas Rasche: I think the change is clearly a cost savings measure, and it is also communicated as such in their own kind of justification. There is a kind of accompanying document to the Omnibus where they also discuss this.

And of course, it saves cost, right. If you only have to do the assessment every five years. But they also say, of course, that in practice, you will probably also face situations where you maybe after three years, you need to go back because you have some suspicion.

So it is not in that sense that this is clear cut every -- only every five years. If there is a suspicion, of course, buyer companies should look into the supply chain. So I think the impact of this is, of course, significant because every five years is a significant interval.

A couple of years back, I've done studies also on supply chain sustainability. And I can tell you, I mean, if you go back to a supplier every five years, then you simply don't have that kind of close relationship on sustainability matters with this supplier.

So sustainability becomes degraded in terms of the importance. And I think this could, in the end, significantly also undermine the impact of the CSDDD the due diligence director.

Jennifer Laidlaw: I also spoke to Aleksandra Palinska, who is Executive Director of Eurosif, a European form that promotes sustainable investment. And she explained that investors are still digesting the proposals and their potential impact. Here she is.

Aleksandra Palinska: Given that the commission has just launched the Omnibus initiative, now everybody is in this analyzing mode basically, trying to understand the full implication of these proposals, but also indeed to prepare their respective positions.

So I think also what many organizations, including ourselves and investors are now doing is also, for instance, trying to think, okay, even now exactly talking about, for instance, simplifications at the technical level is, for instance, to dive in into the European sustainability reporting standards.

And maybe think collectively like, okay, which of the data points and disclosures are most important and essential for investors. Okay, what can be done indeed to simplify these rules while ensuring that they can still deliver on their objective and that basically investors and other.

Obviously, I think transition plans and climate targets, I mean, this is obviously a no-brainer also like Scope 1 to 3 emissions. But obviously, in the context of European sustainability reporting standards, I mean, this goes way beyond that.

And I think what is very positive is that the principle of double materiality has been retained, that we still have the disclosures ranging through environmental, social and governance matters, which is very important.

But again, I think now the idea is to, for instance, dive into the specific disclosures and do further analysis. I think an area that probably a lot of people will look into is also about the narrative disclosures as part of ESRSs.

And I guess this is the part which could be certainly simplified. I think the quantitative disclosures tend to have often, I would say, bigger importance, even though, of course, sometimes you also need some contextual information in order to fully understand them.

I think similarly, there is ongoing consultation also on the EU taxonomy delegated acts. So obviously, I think all stakeholders are now analyzing the concrete commission proposals to simplify actually these disclosures there, also including do no significant harm principle.

Jennifer Laidlaw: As we've seen under the European Commission's proposals, a smaller pool of companies will be required to report. Aleksandra explained how she thinks companies that are no longer in scope might respond.

Aleksandra Palinska: Some of these companies might decide to continue, but some companies might also consider to rethink this approach. We recently actually just had a very interesting discussion with a company that's like, well, look, we already actually produced our sustainability reporting standards.

And actually, they even went already for reasonable assurance, so the higher level. But now they said, well, in the current situation, we are not sure we're going to retain that, right, going forward. So it's very hard to judge, but this way or another, I think the concerns about the availability of comparable and reliable quality sustainability-related disclosures will remain.

And I think the challenge also is, of course, what's going to happen with the assurance. And I think this is also the big problem. Look, of course, companies can report the data on a voluntary basis. But then it's not going to be necessarily assured, right.

And I think part of the big problem in the past years with regards to the ESG disclosures, of course, investors could buy the data, but indeed, their quality and reliability was quite questionable. So here, this assurance was really supposed to guarantee actually that the data is good quality and reliable.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes. I guess that's one of the big things, and that's often been a question in the sustainability space to have that reliable data. What do you think the impact will be on data collection given that investors who are interested in sustainability are already concerned about the lack of data regarding environmental and social risks.

Aleksandra Palinska: That will remain a challenge. And I think that's really a pity because scaling up investments for industrial decarbonization is a high-level priority for the EU, but that's the thing. In order actually to scale up the investments, you need to have reliable disclosures that investors can rely on and for their investment decision-making.

When we talk about voluntary disclosures, of course, there is also a topic which standards company would be using. I mean, let's hope that at least the larger companies would still -- if they decide to report on voluntary basis, would still use the main sustainability reporting standards, so the SRSET1.

However, there is also the voluntary standard for the SMEs which is understood to be used basically, especially by smaller companies on voluntary basis. So here, there is another concern because this standard is really, really simple. It has been developed thinking about the true cornerstone kind of SMEs.

And therefore, I think it would be quite problematic if the same standard would be applied by the larger companies wishing to disclose on voluntary basis. Also, its format is very specific. It's a little bit more of a kind of list of just certain data points or disclosures or kind of a questioner.

So at the end of the day, I think it could be also tricky if then, for instance, companies that are not true SMEs would be, for instance, using this standard to disclose on a voluntary basis. And I think this is also an area that we think should be then reconsidered that if this standard was supposed to be used by a larger number of companies on a voluntary basis, it would have to be revised.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes, because presumably, the kind of things that larger companies look at is not at all the same kind of thing as an SME.

Aleksandra Palinska: Yes, indeed. And it has been significantly simplified. Maybe just also to add, I think some of the issues there is that, for instance, the voluntary SME standard does not have a meaningful regime for reporting policies and actions and targets.

Also, there is no standardized guidance also like for materiality assessment and also in general, to ensure comparability of the reported information also in context, for instance, of GHG Scope 3 emissions. So yes, in general, this is something that would have to be also looked at.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Obviously, it's very difficult to know exactly where things are going to go from here. What kind of debate maybe would you expect to see over the coming months regarding these proposals?

Aleksandra Palinska: It's a very good question. And in a way, all I can say is like I wish I had a crystal ball to tell you what the future will look like. But look, I think the discussions might be challenging because the political landscape has evolved significantly since the last EU elections.

At the same time, I think in case of certain parties, there is still a certain spectrum of views. But I foresee that the discussions might not necessarily be very easy. In general, the mood has been more and more focused on, I would say, simplification, burden reduction.

And I think what is just very important to keep in mind in this context, I think the debate has been a bit challenging. And what we're trying to actually convey as a message is that sustainable investment and sustainable finance, it's not something opposed to competitiveness and growth. It's actually the other way around. We need sustainable investments and sustainable finance for value creation.

We need it actually for the sustainable and competitive growth of our industries, there is an increasing number actually of studies and research that demonstrate that companies that follow a responsible business model and responsible conduct and in general, better incorporate sustainability risks into their decisions and strategies, they actually tend to outperform the other companies.

They are more resilient to risks and shocks. Also like in general, looking also at the investments, there is an increasing number of individual investors and investors in general that are interested in sustainable investments and/or at least investments which do properly incorporate ESG risks. So I think it's just important actually to keep that in mind, and I think talk to the people and promote that awareness.

Jennifer Laidlaw: So today, we heard what's next for the European Commission's proposals to simplify sustainability reporting. And it sounds like we might still see some companies reporting on a voluntary basis even if they're not in the scope of proposed CSRD amendments.

It's also important to note that although the European Commission is proposing to reduce the number of companies subject to the regulation, the largest companies with the biggest weighting in the economy will still have to report.

Lindsey Hall: Yes. And it sounds like the next few months will be significant in terms of negotiations and potential changes to the proposed amendments. And we'll keep tracking developments as they unfold. Thanks, Jennifer, for coming in and do keep us posted.

Jennifer Laidlaw: I'd be happy to.

Lindsey Hall: Okay. Jen before we let you go, I do have just a few more acronyms I'd like us to quiz you on. Are you ready for more?

Jennifer Laidlaw: It's all very exciting. So absolutely.

Lindsey Hall: Okay. TNFD.

Jennifer Laidlaw: So it's the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures.

Lindsey Hall: Ding Ding ding. Ok TCFD.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures.

Lindsey Hall: Yes. All right. PUPPY.

Jennifer Laidlaw: PUPPY. That would be my dog.

Lindsey Hall: That was just a decoy one, you got 100%.

Jennifer Laidlaw: That's because I just like dogs.

Lindsey Hall: Thanks for tuning in to this episode of All Things Sustainable. If you like what you heard, please subscribe, share and leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts.

Esther Whieldon: And a special thanks to our agency partner, the 199. See you next time! 

Copyright ©2025 by S&P Global 

This piece was published by S&P Global Sustainable1, a part of S&P Global.    

DISCLAIMER 

By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk. This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties. 

S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST.