Transcript provided by Kensho.

Lindsey Hall: I'm Lindsey Hall, Head of thought leadership at S&P Global Sustainable1.   

Esther Whieldon: And I'm Esther Whieldon, a senior writer on the Sustainable1 Thought Leadership Team   

Lindsey Hall: Welcome to ESG Insider, a podcast hosted by S&P Global, where we explore environmental, social and governance issues that are shaping investor activity and company strategy.

In this week's episode of ESG Insider, we're bringing you coverage of the sustainability summit that S&P Global Sustainable1 hosted in Paris last week, and I got to be on the ground as Conference MC.

Esther Whieldon: In today's episode we'll be hearing from several of the Summit speakers, including a Swedish pension fund, the chief sustainability officer for a global technology investment Company and the CEO of Business for Inclusive Growth, which is a partnership between the OECD and a global CEO-led coalition of companies. And today, we'll be covering key themes from the conference from physical risk to net zero to the energy transition and even nature.

Lindsey Hall: We're joined in today's episode by our regular contributor, Jennifer Laidlaw. Jennifer is a senior writer on the S&P Global Sustainable1 thought leadership team. She's also based in Paris. Welcome back to Jennifer, it was great to actually see you in person in Paris last week.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes, it was fantastic to see you in person.

Lindsey Hall: Okay. But Jen, I actually have a little bit of a bone to pick with you. 

Jennifer Laidlaw: Oh yea, really? And why is that?

Lindsey Hall: So our listeners who tuned in to last week's episode will know that we started the show with these recordings of beautiful bird song that you went out and captured for us from around Paris. It was really serene and lovely.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes. It was a nice wandering around just enjoying the sunshine and listening to the birds.

Lindsey Hall: Okay, right. But then I went out into Paris after the conference. And do you know what I encountered?

Jennifer Laidlaw: Uh, no.

Lindsey Hall: Pigeons Jennifer, like really mean, aggressive pigeons.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Oh no!

Lindsey Hall: I was sitting at a sidewalk cafe the morning after the summit trying to enjoy my croissant I was just surrounded by this gang of jerk pigeons. So I feel like this is an important disclosure for our audience to have the full view of Paris.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes, it's true. Pigeons in Paris can be extremely annoying, especially when you're trying to eat something.

Lindsey Hall: But I will say this is a good segue into our discussion of nature because nature and biodiversity were big themes that we heard about at the conference.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes, that's right. And I heard quite a bit about the interconnectedness of climate and biodiversity. Several speakers said you can't tackle climate without tackling biodiversity risks at the same time.

We heard, for example, from Alex Michie, Head of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero or GFANZ. He encouraged stakeholders to take an integrated approach to nature and climate rather than tackling them separately.

Lindsey Hall: We also heard quite a bit throughout the day about the rule of standards and regulations.  In the morning, the keynote address was from Emmanuelle Assouan. Emmanuelle is Director General for Financial Stability and Operations at Banque de France, France’s central bank. She said that net-zero is a no-brainer, but she also said the road to net-zero is not one that central banks can walk alone. 

On nature and biodiversity, she said crucial efforts being made in the field of climate need to be complemented by action on nature risk. And she also talked about the steps central banks are taking to address nature risks, for example, through the Network for Greening the Financial System or NGFS. 

We heard in the afternoon from Sue Lloyd, the Vice Chair of the International Sustainability Standards Board, or ISSB. Now Sue has been a guest on this podcast in the past. And at the conference in a prerecorded interview, she talked to S&P Global's Sustainable1 President, Richard Madison, about the forthcoming first set of ISSB standards. She said the ISSB is in the final stages now and on track to publish its first 2 standards by the end of June after receiving more than 1,400 comment letters from around the world. 

Now Standard 1 sets out general requirements for disclosure of sustainability related financial information, and Standard 2 sets out particular risks and opportunities related to climate. As far as what's next, well Sue said it depends on what feedback the ISSB receives in its consultation. It could be biodiversity, human capital, human rights. She encouraged people to respond to its consultation on agenda priorities.

Jennifer Laidlaw: What kind of response did you hear to Sue's interview?  

Lindsey Hall: Well the afternoon keynote address came from David Atkin, CEO of the Principles for Responsible Investing, or PRI. On the topic of the ISSB and global sustainability standards more broadly, David said “Investors are crying out for this.” 

But he also said challenges remain: He said he’s a big fan of integrated sustainability reporting that brings together mainstream financial reporting and sustainability reporting, coming out of silos.  

So again, Jennifer, we heard this talk about media to come together across silos, whether that's working across the public and private sector like Emmanuelle talked about or whether that is bringing together climate and biodiversity.

Jennifer Laidlaw: This came across in my interviews at the summit too. I sat down with conference speaker Michael Sheren, who is a fellow at the Cambridge Institute of Sustainability Leadership and a former adviser to the Bank of England. He explained to me why biodiversity and climate risks need to be addressed hand in hand. You’ll hear him mention the OECD, which stands for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.   

Michael Sheren: It's a system-based world, the atmosphere, the nature, the biodiversity are all connected. But probably about 10 years ago, right about the time of the Paris agreement, policymakers, business leaders are trying to figure out how we can get climate really put on the agenda and moving. And climate, and for those of you that aren't steeped in details that is really about carbon, climate when they say it means carbon reducing carbon whereas biodiversity really talks about nature for us, mangroves, the broader piece that climate sits in. And as most people understand, both the forest and the mangroves and the oceans absorb carbon and there's a system-based planet we're on. 

And so biodiversity is inherently completely connected to climate but to get people really focused on financing the solutions, it was easier to talk in terms of climate because you can measure carbon. I can tell you how many tons were released this year and some really clever people at Oxford and Cambridge can tell you how much is released at the end of next year, it's very measurable and about how you reduce it as well, is very measurable. But it kind of left biodiversity, decoupled. And thank goodness, just recently in the last few years, policymakers have realized we need to reengage and bring them back together again.

Jennifer Laidlaw: So why has there been this policy shift? If regulators, providers, et cetera, would you people to focus on climate in the beginning with what may change their minds in a way and now say like we need to focus on biodiversity as well.

Michael Sheren: I think part of it is if you think about the situation in the earth, it's a bit like a bathtub. So you've got carbon being poured into it from the spout. And some of that's being absorbed by the seas and nature. So that's a big piece of why you care, because if you keep destroying nature, you destroy your ability to absorb it. We keep going the way we are the seas at some point, we'll not be able to absorb the same percentage. And so unless you're really, really keen on jelly fish and squid because most of the other species will be pushed out, you need to address biodiversity. And this will have effects not only on the ability to absorb carbon but also around food stocks, agriculture, just our basic economies are tied to this. 

So not to mention indigenous people who live in places and the value of keeping the system in place had a great fan who was a top resource for the OECD, and he said, look, there's 2 things we have to do is desperately reduce the amount of carbon going in the air. And the second thing is just stop cutting all trees -- because if you don't do those 2 things, and by the way, from the carbon side, the biggest emitter is coal. 

So you basically stop coal and stop cutting down trees. If you don't do those 2 things, it's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. And you can see the symbiotic relationship between the nature, which are trees and things, and obviously the climate, which is emitting the carbon in the air, which we need to reduce. And the 2 are literally the twins. They have to be connected.

Jennifer Laidlaw: I also asked him what rule investors need to play in the transition.

Michael Sheren: Investors, you appreciate that they want to make money every day. And even the average person looks at their stocks, and they go, "Oh, I'm down today." And unfortunately, investing around climate is a mid- to long-term investment. 

So if you're investing in things which will make, I think, very good, stable investments in the mid to long term, they're not the things that necessarily get people excited about moving quickly, and there are things that are essential like renewable energy, water such treatment plants, mass transit, things of that sort. 

There's also the really exciting stuff that I've seen upstairs in the conference where new technology is coming online. Now a lot of people go, the electric vehicles are just as bad as internal combustion Well, no, no, no. They're a step on a path and the internal combustion ones are putting huge amounts of free writing negative externalities into the air and contributing to climate. And so even though we're putting lithium-ion batteries and culverts and these real fight of commodities, -- the next steps are coming. 

There's actually a sodium ion batteries. They're not for cards, but for buildings and homes in that, which are extraordinary everyone knows so even salt. It's really accessible. So if you're an investor, I think you kind of have to do a mix of things. What are the things that we have to have well we need to do an energy transition. So that's obvious, that's renewables and things that sort of. We need to think about how do we make agriculture sustainable, and that's a real emotive subject. 

So thinking about alternatives, if you're an investor, how do I rethink agriculture, -- how do I think food, where it's cleaner, it's healthier, vertical farms. You can't do every crop in them, but they -- many of them -- you can do 26 rotations of crops per year, 90% less water, they are more nutritious. And as long as they're being powered by solar or wind, you could ring road cities with these and be able to provide it. 

So if you're an investor, it's a really exciting time, but you need to be able to start thinking where we trying to land. We're trying to land a sustainable world, which means a lot less carbon, a lot less other of the negative externalities. And from there, you still have to make the same credit decisions and the same investment decisions of a non-sustainable one, but you layer on top of that what you think these companies are doing. So I think it's an exciting time for investors, but it's not easy. It's a brave world.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Michael mentioned the need for critical raw materials in the energy transition, for example, lithium for electric car batteries. I asked how we should tackle the challenge of mining for these minerals while ensuring nature is not harmed.

Michael Sheren: That's one of the big transition questions. The end solution on that, there will be new technological breakthroughs like the sodium ion batteries that we'll be able to take that up for the short term to midterm. These are real big issues. 

So you probably heard in Democratic Republic of Congo in the last week. I think 500 people have been killed, miners. And that's one of those countries it's very rich in biodiversity but also in key minerals. And not long ago, they were auctioning off rainforest. And basically, you could bid for those reinforce either for oil, gas or for carbon credit, whoever paid the most, they would do it. 

But being able to find solutions, I think that could be technology around the lithium and the cobalts and things of that sort, but also on the ESG point, on the "S" bit that if you're a large multinational who's running mines, we are going to need to pay more for those because they need to be run safely. 

So ultimately, we do need these raw materials, these commodities for the short to midterm, but we're going to need to pay more. And we're going to make sure we have to hold to task the large corporations. And by the way, if we're talking about investments for those that aren't taking care of these things, I wouldn't be investing in. I mean just because they're dying in deport Republic Congo, they're no less people than if it happened in just outside of Paris. 

So I think investors need to look at are the big companies that are investing in actually following reasonable rules around these kind of commodities and minerals because it's very easy because they're in emerging markets to turn a blind eye and ultimately, consumers need to know they're paying for a car they can feel good about being in because that lithium was safely mined and it might be a little more expensive, but cars are meant to last a lot longer now, so you can drive it another year or two.

Lindsey Hall: The investor focus on biodiversity was something we heard about a lot at this conference. Many investors want to increase investment in biodiversity but lack data to do so.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes. And that came up when I said time was another of the conference panelist, Julia Ripa. Julia is a quantitative analyst at Swedish pension fund AP4, and she explained how investors are addressing that data challenge. 

Julia Ripa: So we want to be able to do investments within biodiversity. But today, I would say that it's very difficult because the data is not good enough yet. And therefore, we hope that we will see a lot of improvements in the data going forward. 

And one problem is that a lot of data providers are focusing on industry and country estimates instead of looking at company data and also very granular locational data. And as a comp analyst, I want to be able to pick the winners and not divest from a whole industry because most industries are needed. And also, it would be devastating for instance, Brazil, we divest from all companies that have a connection to Brazil. It would be devastating for the work opportunities and the economy of Brazil. So therefore, we really want to pick the ones that are doing their job and work for a better nature. So we want to pick the winners, and we don't want to hide from the problem we want to find solutions to the problem and support the ones that aren't doing that.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes, because I mean data has been a challenge for some time in sustainability for quite a long time. And I can imagine biodiversity is a particularly challenging issue in terms of data. What really needs to be done to fix that? 

Julia Ripa: As you say, it's a very complicated field. And the reason for this is that by diversity, the concept consists of several different subcategories. So for instance, marine life, freshwater, deforestation. -- and it's very difficult to compare companies. For instance, a company that is impacting the forest or to see, it's very difficult to compare and measure their impact and also their dependency on the nature. 

A lot of the impact on biodiversity lies within the value chains for the companies. And that is also very difficult to keep track of. So it's difficult for data providers, but we need to find solutions. And I would say that the most important part is to focus on company data and also very granular locational data. 

And the reason for that is, for instance, if you use freshwater in Sweden, where we don't have water scarcity, the impact is much less than if you withdraw freshwater within a country with water scarcity. 

So there are many different tricky questions to answer, but we need to find solutions and be innovative. And I would say that the most important part for data providers is to not trying to build your own solution because it's too difficult, is that try to collaborate with experts in the field. So researchers, investors, other data providers and try to build something together and collaborate. 

Jennifer Laidlaw: So is there anything specific that you see within biodiversity that companies really should be focusing on that they're maybe not focusing on at the moment? 

Julia Ripa: The supply chain, I would say. A lot of problems with biodiversity are not direct impact, it's indirect impact. So one example is deforestation: there are very few large companies within developed markets that are directly cutting down trees. Instead we see the problems in the supply chains and there are large problems within their supply chains. So I think companies should focus on really digging into who they are having business contacts with.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Okay. That's interesting. I mean, when it's their supply chain that it tends to be the Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 suppliers to basically suppliers across the whole chain? Or is it either ones that smaller companies, they maybe don't have that much information about?

Julia Ripa: Yes, I would say the last one. So very often, we see problems, for instance, very local actors, for instance, in Brazil, very local and small actors. And then in several steps, it goes up in the value chain towards the larger companies. 

Jennifer Laidlaw: When you're looking at different companies, do you look at their climate commitments and their biodiversity commitments at the same time?

Julia Ripa: For now, we have focused more on climate. We haven't managed to incorporate biodiverse targets yet. So what we do within our global equities portfolio is that we have incorporated forward-looking measures. So we use S&P and Trucost forward-looking data. So we look at both how well companies are aligned with the Paris agreement and if they are setting up targets, et cetera. And we also look at if they could handle higher costs if the carbon price increases in the future. 

So by that, we are able to divest from companies that are not working sustainably. And instead, we can focus our investments to companies that are transitioning into a low-carbon economy and are more in line with the Paris Agreement and are setting up climate targets. 

Jennifer Laidlaw: That's something that we've been looking at in the podcast, whether it's best to engage with clients or divest from clients. So it sounds like you are divesting from clients that you think are not doing enough. 

Julia Ripa: So we, or AP5, is an active owner and engagement is a very important tool for us, and we like to engage and collaborate with companies that we own. So by thing that we use both divestment and engagement strategies because we think both are very important tools. And within the global equities portfolio where I work, we use a combination of divestment and engagement. 

So we try to identify high-risk areas within the portfolio. So one example is companies that are not transitioning from fossil fuels. That is a high-risk area for us, and we don't want to be involved in those companies. And then instead, we can focus our engagement resources to companies that are transitioning and where we see a management team that is willing to change. And we can focus our resources there. So in other words, we try to optimize our impact based on the engagement resources that we have because we have a broad portfolio, more than 1,000 positions.

Jennifer Laidlaw: The other thing I wanted to ask you about was just while we're talking about divestment engagement because I noticed that you'd write divest from airlines, shipping and some truck freight and decided to invest in American railways, niche players in truck freight. So can you just maybe unpack that a little bit and just explain why you decided to take that investment strategy?

Julia Ripa: Yes. So there are 2 main reasons. First of all, we see that these sectors that we have or industries that we have divested from have very high carbon intensity. And unfortunately, we have seen very little progress to reduce their emissions. And therefore, they are not very attractive investments for us. So one example is the airlines. 

And if we compare to, for instance, American Railways, which play a very large part within the American economy, they have ability to yield positive returns and positive cash flows, and they are also investing assets into the transition. So we see a higher profitability within those industries. 

Jennifer Laidlaw: Julia also explained the pension fund's investment strategy towards hard-to-abate sectors, which have a lot of emissions such as steel or cement. 

Julia Ripa: Many of our peers divest totally from the energy sector and from fossil fuels. And we have taken another approach since we believe that we will be in need of energy going forward as well. And we saw that with the Ukraine crisis and the war we saw that we are definitely in need of energy still today. So we need to support the companies that are transitioning and are the leaders within the energy transition. And we invest in companies that are transitioning are in line with the Paris agreement and are working to find new and sustainable solutions. 

Jennifer Laidlaw: So we heard Julia talking about the impact of supply chains on nature. This also came up in my interview with another conference speaker, Prajna Khanna. Prajna is Chief Sustainability Officer for Prosus Group, a company that invests in technology companies mainly in emerging markets.

Given that a lot of key biodiversity areas are located in emerging markets I wanted to get some sense from her about how that interconnection between biodiversity and climate and how that influences her company’s investments. You’ll hear her mention the WWF. That is the World Wide Fund for Nature, an influential international conservation organization that is also known as the World Wildlife Fund in some parts of the world.  

Prajna Khanna: So first of all, we're a 3-year-old company in Europe. We've registered 4 years old. So we've actually had the benefit of even our climate strategy and our climate engagement program is relatively new. So it has been easier for us because nature and biodiversity has been an emerging issue while we are building out our strategy, it's right there. We've been able to leverage off the fact that we're in development and we include that in there. 

So for example, we've used the WWF tool that's out there to map our portfolio to understand the risks. And at this time, already, we are able to start thinking in a more integrated way, which you must because these are absolutely interconnected issues. As all my panelists and all this speakers before me continuously emphasize, these are absolutely interconnected issues. And for us, it's far more meaningful because our companies operate in those regions that have the last remaining reserves of rich biodiversity. 

But then where does the responsibility lie? We believe we have the position of an advantage because of the fact that we're starting out on its new. And because it's we can embed so many different nuances and elements that companies that have to go back to their board with a climate program. And now we're bringing you nature risks, and the executive management team needs to be fully upskilled and made aware of a whole new thematic area.

Jennifer Laidlaw: I also wanted to get some sense from Prajna on whether her firm professed engage or divest from companies..

Prajna Khanna: By the nature of our investment thesis, the fact that we invest in emerging economies in diverse social, political, economic ecosystems, we, by nature, have a higher risk tolerance. And we also have a deeper understanding of the fact that there will be these variances. And there is no one size fits all approach to, there are advances to all of the ESG themes that we think about for a corporate performance, whether it's social, from a human capital perspective, there may be local jurisdictions and laws that are completely different in South Africa that incentivize companies to do something differently than in China or Indonesia or in Brazil. 

So for us, what is important is continuous engagement. Possibly the only case for divestment that you may have seen and it's been in the news as well was we have divested the Russian assets that we had for which for us was the hardline.

Jennifer Laidlaw: You heard Prajna mentioned the importance of taking into account the social impact of investing. So I asked her to elaborate on that. You hear her mention the CSRD at one point. That stands for a new EU rule called the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive.

Prajna Khanna: So that's very much top of mind for us because as we incentivize or we encourage our companies to set science-based targets, a company in South Africa to set a science-based target and to then achieve the energy transition that is required for them is going to be far more difficult than a company in Germany. Whether it's the enabling incentives and policy incentives, whether it is access to the right infrastructure, the financial fund flows, the energy mix, current energy mix at country level. 

So we have to already understand the level of difficulty that our portfolio companies have to overcome to be able to go on the same pathway that they are expected to by the market when they're getting on their decarbonization or net-zero strategy. So I think we very much recognize that, acknowledge that as the investor, and we work with the companies to design their pathways that makes sense for them and their operating context. 

Jennifer Laidlaw: Is there any specific regions that you work with and you think need to be doing more in terms of sustainability?

Prajna Khanna: I actually think that the financial institutions in the Global North need to be doing more in terms of sustainability. In terms of the flow of funds, this promise of funding the Global South towards sustainable just and fair transitions. That is not happening. There has been lots of targets and lots of fun allocation, but we still don't see that fund flow happening. 

So what we see is that companies who are early on their ESG reporting journey with the upcoming CSRD regulation and there in the global South, very many of our companies are not listed, so they've not really had even a local compliance obligation to map and disclose specific indicators on their nonfinancial performance. 

For them, it's going to be a really big challenge. And actually, the whole idea of using the CSRD to channel funding flow to sustainable companies is going to backfire because the companies that you want to get on the sustainability pathway are the ones that are not yet mature and therefore, will not be in compliance and will be penalized. 

And I think we need to think of a strategy on how do we bring parity across all regions on understanding their impacts, the disclosures, and not just channeling fund flows to companies that have proven performance.

Lindsey Hall: Those comments really brought home another central theme of the conference, which is the just transition. And now that can be defined in different ways, but generally speaking, ever first, the importance of transitioning to a low-carbon economy in a way that's as fair and inclusive as possible to everyone concerned. 

Now Jennifer, I thought you heard all the ESG acronyms by this point, but I actually learned a new one at the conference, TSFD -- that stands for the Taskforce on Social-related Financial Disclosures. It's a new framework that's currently in the works, and it's modeled after existing ones like the task force on climate-related financial disclosures, or TCFD, and the taskforce on nature related financial disclosures or TNFD.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes, I was intrigued by that as well. Conference speaker Camille Putois discussed the TSFD during her panel and so I managed to grab a few minutes with her at the end of the conference to find out more. Camille is CEO of Business for Inclusive Growth, which is a partnership between the OECD and major corporations from across the globe. By the way, you'll hear her mention DE&I and that stands for diversity, equity and inclusion.

Camille Putois: So 1 year ago, this coalition decided to put the topic on the table, who is interested, why, et cetera. And I can say today, we have been receiving very positive feedback. And I think there are several reasons. The first one is investors ask there is an increasing demand from investors. They ask companies to report on an increasing number of social topics, of course, traditionally ask companies to report on workforce, training, et cetera, but they ask more and more to report on DE&I, on human rights, on living wage, et cetera. 

So an increasing number of investors who have companies to report on social issues. And we mentioned during the panel, the importance a few times the just transition. The just transition, it's a nexus between environmental and social issues, how to anticipate the social dimension of climate change. And of course, if companies, if they want to implement their climate policy in an efficient way, they have to anticipate the social dimension of the climate policies. So that means that we have to complement environmental indicators, climate-related indicators with social indicators related to the ecological transition. So we meet social indicators to complement environmental reporting standards. 

And we are also aware that all over the world inequalities are raising are increasing. And so how businesses and inequalities interact with each other, this is a very important matter. And so it would be great if companies could report on this in the same way in a comparable way. 

So there are some solid and long-term trends that convinced us that we need some global framework for the social reporting. And additionally, we know that European Union started to work on sustainability reporting standards more than 1 year ago, and the standards that should be adopted soon will include social requirement disclosures. 

But the SEC also announced last year that they are going to provide more guidance on how companies should report on human capital. And the ISSB just launched a consultation on the next step -- should they work on reporting on rights and human capital? So that means that there is a risk that between the EU, the ISSB, the SEC, we already have many private reporting standards, but there is also risk of inconsistency between public reporting standards between the standards and the ISSB standards. So we really need a global framework to ensure comparability and consistency between all these standards.

Jennifer Laidlaw: I mean obviously, with social it's very hard to say what are the targets with climate, you can set like greenhouse gas emissions, we're getting reduced like so many measures. How do we deal with that challenge when it comes to social issues?

Camille Putois: Yes, it's a first technical challenge because ideally, we should be able to define science-based targets as we did for climate, it's time to define these targets for climate. So for social issues, also, it will take time. And sometimes it will not be possible to define science-based target. And it's related also to the fact that technically, it's challenging. But how should we prioritize social issues? 

Well, the response may depend on the country where you live the culture, et cetera, sometimes not. Sometimes there are some global issues. There are some global guidelines on human rights, for example, and we should be able to define some disclosure recommendations, building on the OECD and UN guidelines on human rights, for example. But another topic, for example, on DE&I, the prioritization is not the same according to the country, some issues, some topics related to DE&I important topic in some countries, not in other ones. 

So technical cultural issues without not to mention political topics, some social topics are quite polarized in some countries. And even the word social is understood as socialism in some countries. So it will take time. And so we are still at the early stage. We are exploring the project. We would like to take time to join forces with other comparable initiatives because we don't want to develop a new standard. We don't want to reinvent the wheel, and we don't want to duplicate other efforts.

Jennifer Laidlaw: And how do you account for the financial impact of social issues? 

Camille Putois: The question was raised during the panel. Is it material or not -- of course, like the TCFD and the TNFD, we would like to focus first on material risks. So yes, when we say that we have to put the people at the heart of climate change, of climate policies -- we are aware that climate policies that companies are implementing will not work. They don't take as the social impact of their policies.

Lindsey Hall: So we heard from Camille how climate and social issues are also very much interconnected, and it kind of reinforces this takeaway we heard throughout the conference about the importance of breaking out of silos and taking a holistic approach to sustainability. 

Thanks so much for sharing your interviews, Jennifer.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Oh you're welcome. Yes, there was a real sense of the conference that you just can't manage climate risks on their own biodiversity and social factors are also risks for companies and investors. 

Esther Whieldon: And next week, we'll be off to Singapore. I'll be bringing you highlights and interviews from the summit that S&P Global Sustainable1 hosted there on May 16.

Lindsey Hall: Thanks so much for listening to this episode of ESG Insider and a special thanks to our producer, Kyle Cangialosi. Please be sure to subscribe to our podcast and sign up for our weekly newsletter, ESG Insider. See you next time.   

Copyright ©2023 by 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.