 Cafine. Welcom efo'r bodi, ddifudio'n fawr o'r fawr o fynd yn gweithio'r un o fynd i'r gennym, a fynd i'n fwylo'n cyflawni gyda'i rydyn ni i gael i'n gweithio yma. Rydyn ni'n Cleshine, mae'r dyfodol i'r CEO o'r Eisteddfodol Cyfnodol, yn maen nhw'n CISL, ac o'r rhaid mewn gwirionedd o'r 20,000 olafnai Cisil. A'i rhaid i'n gweithio'n Cisil, Mae'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio ddau a'i gofyn nhw'n dweud y gweithio'n gweithio'n dweud, sy'n ddweud o'r llwyffaeth gwahanol, oherwydd ydych chi'n mynd i'ch mynd i'ch ddweud ymlaen, oherwydd yma, mewn gweithio'n piolaeth yn y ddechrau. Rwy'n gweithio'n gwaith hwnnw, i ddim yn ychydig o'r ddylch, maen nhw'n mynd i ddweud o'r cyffredin iawn o'r ymlaen. Yn do~~....... So we have that reminder of the protests and the activists who are going to be marching through the streets today calling out tomorrow, and people on this platform and in this room are people who are architects of tomorrow, as well as of today. COP26 was always going to be pivotal, obviously it was the big 5, now 6 year big moment after Paris, but other events beyond the data, reports and all the rest have really yn gweithio'r lles ar gyfer y 26. Mae'n ddiwedd ar gyfer gweithloedd ffynol yma, ond ond gwneud nid o gweithio'r lles. Mae'n ddyma'r ddweud ddoel yng nghymru yn cael eu fforsig o'r ddweud o'r ffordd o'r ddweud o'r dyfodol o'r sysgol, felly mae'n gweithio'r ddwylo. Felly mae'r gweithio'r ddwylo oestrwyddi o'rion yn gweithio'r ddweud y lles o'r hyn o'r lles o'r ...eg y nog edrych allan nhw i amgylchedd ymweld, y mae'r blendfynol yng ngyfraith, ysbyty, y cigarnion yn gywlwedd fel y flwyddyn sydd... ...og ynghylch o'r cyflawn o'r system ynghylch er mwyn oedd yn unig. Y cyfrifyn o'r fachwyr yn y mynd i chyfloddolol, wrth i ddweud dyma o bobl gwir. Yn hwn o gwir, mae'r llave i gwaith i fynd i gyflawn o'r lleifau a'r llwaith. Rwy'n symud o'r dominoedd yn ymddangos post COVID-19, a i'r risio cael y cyfrifiool sydd ar y cyfannu yn unig, ac yn ei ddweud, yn ddod y pethau'r tynnu, oherwydd i ni'n ddarparu'n cyllid o'r gweithio'n cyfrifio'n cyfrifio'r hyn yn cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio. Mae'r ffordd yn ymddangos, fel NET0 yn y dyfodol Cymru, i'n gwybod bethau i gyd. Mae'n gwybod bod newydd o'r ffordd, ac mae'n gwybod yw'r cyflwyno sydd ymddangos ymddangos ymddangos o pobl, gwybod a'r cyflwyno. Ac mae'n ddod i'n gwybod, a'r hollbeth yw gwybod hwnnw, is that expectations for more clarity and more integrity and better ways to measure without getting stuck in Akron in the soup. New standards, new commitments, will the first week be pledge fest, or will it be something that the historians of tomorrow will look back on and say, this was a moment when it did change. So a huge responsibility and a greater opportunity for business finance government and international organisations, ac mae'r nexus ar y cyfrifio CISL yn ymgyrch ar y cyfrifio. Rwy'n meddwl am y cyfrifio non-state actor, ymgyrch, SMEs ac yn ymgyrch, yn ymgyrch ar y cysylltu'r cyfrifio, ac mae'r panel yn ei ddweud o'r ddweud yn ymgyrch. Rwy'n meddwl am ymgyrch ar y cyfrifio ymgyrch, ac mae'n meddwl am ymgyrch ar y cyfrifio ymgyrch. Ac rwy'n meddwl am ymgyrch, rwy'n meddwl am yr original, ar y cyfrifio Paescais-Sochio, y CEO ddweud o AstraZeneca. Rydym yn ei wnaeth gyfer allan oines yn ymgyrch ar ddweud a gennym'n iawn. Dwi meddwl yn llawer ar ôl yn ei w Fisher,ddwn i reoedd gael ni'n gwneud rwyf yn iawn bugsodd, elwyr eich cyfrifio sy'n meddwl, ffais y bynnag i'r ffordd ac yn ffasol, ond yn ei bwldol o'r ffordd yn ymddangos i'r ymddangos yw'r cyfrifio. Felly, yn ymdweud, yn ddiforio'r cyfrifio sy'n meddwl i'r ymddangos i'r ymddangos i'r ymddangos, a'r ymdweud o'r ffordd, ymddangos i'r ymddangos i'r ymddangos i'r ymddangos. Felly, mae hynny'n rhaid i ddweud. I want to reiterate that this event is being live streamed. We hope there's lots of lovely people out there joining in. Please feel free to put your questions on the feed. You in the room, please feel free to take questions. And this is just the start of a conversation, so it doesn't stop here. So, first panel, where have we got to? We have three wonderful panels. It says that I should now invite them to join the stage. They were very smart because they already joined the stage. So without further ado, I'm going to ask these of them to introduce themselves and their work very briefly, and to pull out a couple of things that are delighted or horrified them in this first week. So our first provocateur-in-chief is Rachel Kite, who is now the Dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, but has an extraordinary career, which she'll also give you the highlights of. Rachel. Thank you very much. Well, I think my first cop I went to was a youth delegate and then had a career in the multilateral development banks, civil society and then investment and ended up as the Secretary General's special representative for sustainable energy. And so I do a number of things. I think most pertinent at this cop, in addition to bringing a lot of students here, is that I'm the co-chair of the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative. And if voluntary carbon markets are going to be part of the solution and not part of the problem as many Indigenous peoples, representatives and stakeholders here fear then we have to build integrity on the science. The science is better and more unequivocal than we've ever had. And then if you have science and then you build integrity onto that, then you can get to scale, not the other way around. So well, it's been for those of you who are not in Glasgow, hello. It has been a beautiful, sunny or terminal week here in Glasgow, which is not what people predicted. Will the weather hold? I think that's the big question because I think the negotiations are tough. There's some very tough things that have to be negotiated and to have two weeks of sunshine in November in Glasgow would truly be a miracle. So I think that there is a bit of a pledge first going on. That's not all bad because as we know, you know, sometimes you say something and then you have to figure out exactly how you're going to do it. And when you have governments pledging to net zero, I'll come back to that financial sector for the first time. Really, I think the leaders of the financial sector getting really serious about what net zero means and then businesses continuing to ratchet up their commitments sector by sector. And when you've got aviation and shipping and steel and cement and all of those hard to debate sectors also coming to the party, you've got that there is something here. There is the beginning of momentum, but it has big caveats. The International Energy Agency sort of tweeted out yesterday, I think that if you now add up all of the pledges that governments have made that we're now, you know, we're on a pathway to 1.8 by the end of the century. Well, it's from our lips to God's ears, right? That's a pledge that has to be turned then into concrete action. It means that you have to be able to compost your food and your village has to have an anaerobic digester. It means you have to be able to buy that heat pump at a reasonable price with a government subsidy so that you can flip to green quickly and that you don't feel that you're going to be worried that you're going to be cold this winter. I mean, we've got to do that kind of work so that we bring everybody along with us. And that's the gap at the moment. The policy undercarriage for the NDCs is not there in most countries. The public wants green in most countries, but they worry that they may not be able to afford it. So that has to be changed. I'll stop you there, but I love that phrase, policy undercarriage. I think that I like that one. We're going to bring in Tony Danker, who's the CEO of the Confederation of British Industries. Tony. Yes, I've been at the CBI for a year now and how to reflect on the week. I agree with Pledge Fest, but I heard Al Gore speak the other day and he said something which I find very interesting, which he said, you know, cops are not either parruses or Copenhagens. You know, those were one-off pies or one-off flows. And this is about the overall arc. And I think what the Pledge Fest represents is two things. One, one tactically an approach by the UK and the UN to ensure that the perfect is not the enemy of the good and getting 190 people to agree about everything is unlikely. And therefore, let's build snowballs. And I think they are hoping that these things will snowball rather than unravel over the course of the next week. And I think that's a pretty interesting different tactical approach. I mean, Rachel will know more than me. She's been to more cops, but that feels like quite an interesting, almost tactical thing to try. I think the business piece is really new and fresh and interesting and is approaching step change world. I'm intrigued by the fact that both His Royal Highness, the Prime Minister, Secretary Kerry, the new language is government does billions, but the private sector does trillions. And it's sort of like an Austin Powers movie. But what I think is really intriguing about it is we haven't really gone to the next step, which is so how do you unlock that, right? And you've got this sort of incredible sight of Mark Carney who's done a wonderful job saying, okay, I think we've got the money. I mean, now what, right? How do we put this to work? And I said last night that I think what 2022 is going to be about, and I think the UK government is now just beginning to get into this. And I'm glad they are, because I think the UK leads the way in lots of places and I think it's going to have to lead the way into the hard stuff as well. And that is government moving from being green rule makers to being green market makers. And I think these require some new skills, right? It's about thinking about market mechanisms like contracts for difference and offshore wind. It's about thinking about the role of reporting and disclosure and how it genuinely drives pretty quickly rapid climate action by firms. It's about thinking about pump priming markets exactly as the government I think are trying to do on heat pumps. It's about frankly changing our tax system to in order to reward those that are green rather than those that don't. It's about thinking about our regulatory objectives. Economic regulators have got two objectives in this country. One is to keep prices down for consumers and the other is to essentially keep high levels of competition. But they aren't under obligations to drive up investment or innovation or indeed net zero. And so I'm intrigued about, okay, number one, yep, private sector does trillions, not billions, got it. Number two, private sector needs to make commitments and I think the, and I've done a lot of media calls and everyone's like it's all greenwashing, it's all greenwashing. It's not greenwashing, right? CEOs don't come to places like this to greenwash. You don't send your CEOs for that. CEOs are coming because this is now incredibly real and they're thinking about highly significant investments. But what's it really, what's the next step now? So you asked us to look forward, right? What's the next step now? Let me let Jessica in now, if I may, and then I'll come straight back to you on the next step. No, that's fine. So Jessica Fries is the Executive Chairman of Accounting for Sustainability. So I want to pick up on that because you're talking about how we move it forward. Jessica. Fantastic, thank you. So accounting for sustainability, we work with all parts of the finance community. So I think that the point there around how do you turn commitments to action, I think, is a really key piece that we clearly work on. Coming into this COP, I confess, I felt pretty pessimistic about what we were going to be achieving. But at this midpoint, I would agree that there is a real sense of momentum. And I think one of the things that's very different about this COP is really that multi-stakeholder perspective that we're really seeing coming together. And we know that to tackle the scale of the transition at the pace, at the speed, we really need every actor to be working together in consort with a similar level of ambition. And so I would agree. Now we need to look at how all of those ambitions can be realised. I think most organisations, when they're setting their zero pledges, for some they may have a sense of how they can get there. But at the moment, very few, and I think most are pretty honest about that, really know the detail. But the key with setting a really ambitious target is that it drives the ambition, it drives the investment, it drives the kind of innovation that we're going to be needing and it acts as a really motivating, mobilising and quite positive force within an organisation. So I do think that the commitments are really key. One of the other things, though, that we've seen, which I think is about putting that architecture in place that will be key to holding people to account in terms of those commitments and giving us the kind of information to assess within an organisation, but then outside of an organisation to hold people to account, are two additional announcements that were made on Wednesday, which was the finance focus day. One was around, within the UK, transition plans. And I think with a lot of the investors we work with, we've seen that real focus on wanting to see more detail from companies about what their transition plans are. And I think part of that is what are the near-term targets. So what is the one year, the five year, the 10 year, as well as the 2050, the 2040 targets, which many have announced. And so that, I think, is where a huge amount of work has already happened, but we will really see over the next year more and more coming out so that people can really look at those pathways, scrutinise them, do things like compare the amount of investment going on. And this comes to the really techie work that we at A4S do around things like capital investment. Does the numbers in the financial statements stack up with the commitments that have been made at the front half of the annual report? That brings me to the third of the, I think, the key announcements on finance, that is really the result of the work of many, many people, but from an A4S perspective, well over a decade ago when the Prince of Wales, well, Prince of Wales first set A4S up back in 2004. And his vision at the time was a recognition that we didn't have 21st century reporting and decision-making systems commensurate with the scale of the problem. We had 20th century systems and we really needed to think through how we could drive those forward. Over 10 years ago, we set up something called the International Integrated Reporting Council with that vision that sustainability reporting really needed to be at the heart of the financial reporting infrastructure. So one of the big announcements on Wednesday was finally, at long last, but a really important step forward from the accounting world was the announcement that the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation has set up an international sustainability standards board. It's merging that organisation that we set up, the IIRC, which itself had brought together all of the key players along with something called the sustainability accounting standards board. So they're part of the value reporting foundation. You can see from all of those different acronyms the fact that there's huge simplification and coming together of a huge part of the current reporting infrastructure. The focus will be on the capital market, so we do have a few questions in terms of how that will really deliver what is needed. So I don't think you're quite at global standards yet, but a huge milestone and to provide all of those investors who have pledged that 130 trillion of how they're going to be shifting capital. It's the kind of architecture that the plumbing within the system and so really important. Fantastic. So having, I choked off Tony, but I'm actually going to jump now straight to Rachel both to comment on things you've heard, but really focusing this panel's discussion on really what are those tough changes? What are the things that we really need to see happen? So Tony, hold the point I interrupted you before, but I'll let Rachel start first in terms of what you see is now these toughest changes and what can leaders and others really push for, but also any reflections on what you've heard from your fellow panellists. So I think it's about guardrails and ratchets. So guardrails, there is greenwash Tony as an enormous amount of it and it's got, I think the business community has got to call it out amongst each other as well as having the street calling it out and investors beginning to call it out, right? So I think it's the guardrails around that, which means that Rishi Sunak's announcement of mandatory transition plans is really important. So we have to go from voluntary to mandatory. So if the UK leads, then we've got to take other jurisdictions into mandatory transition plans and the ratchet has to be really fast. We don't have time. So every year you're going to have to come back. Every two years you're going to come back. I agree that ISP is really, really important integrated standards. You're going to need to have a lot of help. Developing countries don't have the bandwidth to think through the policy of the carriage. So you're going to need to help on the government side. And then we've got to make sure that this doesn't become some kind of exclusive green club. So developing countries have to have access to capital markets on reasonable terms. We have to do much more to get the financing into these countries for the green transition while we choke off the money that's going to Brown. And you've seen all these announcements of no more public finance for coal, no more public finance for oil and gas from a leading coalition of 20 countries and organisations now. So that's closing down because there's no money there anymore. But we've got to then, at a commensurate level, put the money into the green transition. So all of these levers have to be pulled at the national level and at the global level. And then one other thing I would say is in the Secretary General's opening speech, he said that he will convene an expert group to basically indicate what the guardrails are for net zero so that if we can't be disciplined enough about our net zeros, that he will put those guardrails in place. And I think that that's appropriate and necessary. I know that there's some people like, well, we've got to race to net zero. Why does the Secretary General need to say that? Well, because there are people in the race to net zero who should never been allowed to get to the start line. We know who they are. And we've got to be really serious about what a net zero claim is. Nobody says it's easy, but that honesty and that transparency, which is being negotiated at the moment and will be tough, will be important. And so mandatory, I think, is the key for that. Brilliant. Tony, let me bring you in. Yeah, look, I agree. I think, unfortunately, the Treasurer saying where she's requirements aren't mandatory. And I think we do need to get to mandatory, standardized accountability for corporates really quickly. And the sooner that we do, you know, the sooner that we have sunlight on what's really going on and actually the sooner that businesses have some visibility about where they rank compared to their peers. That's where it gets really interesting. And I actually think I think the account, talking to the accountants this week's been the most interesting thing for me, which is really understanding what's going to happen in reporting. Is it going to be simple, helpful, impactful? Is it going to be benchmarkable? Because we had a dinner of 700 corporates last night talking to them all. You know, the minute we have straightforward science-based, evidence-based disclosure in a way that's highly comparable to our peers across markets, I think this thing will move unbelievably fast. And all of a sudden governments will look unbelievably slow compared to how quickly good disclosure will unlock incredible transparency and an unbelievable set of benchmarking, you know. Not only just sort of thrust upon corporates by investors or the markets, but, you know, just, you know, the crowd will, you know, I think things will rise to the top or will fall out. And so I think that is a vital next step. I'm worried actually Rishi's stuff isn't mandatory. And I'm worried that, you know, if it becomes a bloody bureaucratic art of everybody telling yet more qualitative stories in a way that's completely different to the way American companies tell their stories and, you know, we've gone back a step, not forward a step. But look, there's only one way to get started. There's only one way to do this, which is to get started and iterate and make it better. So let's do it quickly. But underpinning what you've been saying, Tony, is this real question about the test for leadership, which is this is the moment for the policy vision, courage and boldness in order to unleash the capacities you've just talked about in business or we've got the standards and so on. But you need to have that, the undercarriage to be right so that then it can move forward. Jessica, I mean, I talked about, you know, net zero being the sex on the street, but now I'm knowing that accountants have suddenly become the new sex symbols. So yeah, I'm not sure I'd quite go that far, but definitely a key to really achieving the kind of ambitions. I'd like to come back to that question of Greenwash because I think that that's part of what the challenge is, the focus is, but then also the phrase that is being used around green hushing. And I think it's going to be a really delicate balance of how do we get the right balance between those two? I think mandatory is key because I think for a lot of organisations, we'll just decide that they want to go under the radar. I think that that is one risk. And so those that do make bold ambitions and then potentially can't find the right way to meet them, but their intent is genuine and they really are putting the investment, the work in to try and get there. I think it could act if there's too much negative focus and calling out of some of those who are making ambitious and authentic and genuine pledges could deter others. And so I do think you need that very strong mandatory underpinning that creates that level playing field. And then I think there's quite a lot of thinking that needs to be done of how can you differentiate between an ambitious pledge that is genuine and is backed by the action, but maybe falls short with one that is there just to buy time and to carry on doing business as usual. And actually that's where I do think things like accounting both looking at the financial numbers as well as some of these climate and social and other commitments and targets that are set because that can give you some quite good insights into whether there is that consistency and that's one of the reasons why this coming together at the different types of standards is really key. One final point on the sort of standards accounting side and picking up on your point. I do think at the moment we're on track to get differences in different big jurisdictions. Europe has focused, is at pace going forward with standards looking at the full impact, so what they're calling double materiality. The UK has signalled that they want to actually when it comes to climate they will use the ISSB standards but will also add on impact. And I do think that that is key. I don't think we will get to net zero unless we're looking at what impact an organisation has on the world and the impact that world has on an organisation. And I think that that's what, to be honest, investors want as well, that's what the net zero pledges are about. The two are so deeply interconnected that I don't think you can divorce one from the other. So I think that that is going to be a key first test of the ISSB of can it reconcile those two different perspectives and drive further consolidation. Rachel. So the reason we need regulation, right, so mandatory, is for all of these reasons, and it's, but there's two to focus on. One is without the mandatory, without the regulation, it's difficult to make sure that this is equitable and as well as driving towards 1.5. The second thing is this point about how do you reward first movers and how do you reward those who are really going the extra mile? So when you regulate you can set standard and you've got to clear that but then if you can go tier one, tier two, tier three, tier four above, there should be some great premium in there. I think when you've got the regulation in place then the capital markets, the financial markets can start to do their job but I think one of the things that I hear here is that those who are going first, those who are really doing the best that they can do, there's very little reward for them in the market at the moment and I think we have to get better at rewarding those who are pulling everybody else with them. So underpinning that, excuse me, is how does business and non-state actors raise the bar for the policy actors in that sense? This question you were talking about. Do you want to say a word on that and then we might take one question from the floor, Tony? Yeah, look, just in a UK context, I mean I think the reason why the UK has to solve this first is because the UK spends a much lower percentage of its GDP on green investment. Yeah. You know, it was 0.55%, we think it may have got to one, the EU is 1.8, the Americans are 3.4 and we have a government that is now feeling like they need to get more fiscally conservative, feeling like compared to historical UK spending, they've spent an unbelievable amount of money. Now that's fine, you know, but we've got a lot of global companies in membership who will tell me stories about the offers they get from European countries compared to UK companies in terms of subsidies. So if the UK is not going to compete in public investment terms in essentially the transformation of a green economy, it has to be the best in the world at unlocking green markets. Regulatory frameworks, reporting standards, deployment of capital, you know, tough questions about regulation, exactly what you'd said, you know, rewarding those who do and penalizing those who don't. My biggest worry, if I'm honest with you, is actually I'm not sure we have the capability really of that smart market design. And I've been spending the last six months looking for it, by the way, either in government or in business or in regulators to say, who can really pull off the next set of, you know, offshore wind market design across our economy. And that's the capability gap that I think we're going to have to get really good at. But that's great. So you've identified that as my final question, really the needed action or the top priority to... Market design, green market design. Well, in Britain anyway, it's green market design. And just to be clear with everybody, just to Rachel's original point, you know, we stood up last night and said very clearly to all our members, right? You're either taking a lead or you're left behind, right? And if, you know, any business in this world who thinks that they can protect the present and ignore the future, I mean, it's business school 101, right? When the future attacks the present, right? Don't try and protect the present race to the future. We do it in every single area of business strategy. Anybody who thinks that that's not the answer now is just going to go left behind. Fantastic. Jessica, a final sort of call to action or top priority for you. So I think there's two things we haven't touched on, both of which are connected. We're sitting here in Merchant's Hall, which is in George Square in Glasgow. So today, the Friday for the Future strike will be ending here in George Square. And tomorrow there's additional protests. I think we haven't touched on the level of anger and demands from a lot of people in terms of the failure of action so far. And I think that that level of anger and pressure is only going to ramp up as we see the consequences of our inaction. And that's the second piece we haven't touched on is resilience. So we know that we've already baked in huge amount of physical impacts from climate change. And so I think as those physical impacts continue to bite, of course that's another thing for business and finance really focusing on how they can invest to build resilience and prevent the worst impacts of the climate crisis from impacting individuals and their lives and their livelihoods. But we know that that is going to happen. So I think that we haven't touched on that. And then linked to that is the other form of anger that I think you do see or fear, which is as a result of the transition and social justice. So how can we have that just transition? Otherwise, I think that we will continue to see huge anger and fear from those communities that risk being left behind. And I think that that again could act as a huge barrier to progress. And so those two forces, I think we really need to demonstrate swift action and for all of the business, finance and political community to be very rapidly demonstrating that all of these pledges are real and that that progress is tangible. Fantastic. Rachel. Yeah, one point, just building on what you said is that I think we talk about adaptation here and adaptation finance in the context of the COP. It's often about transfers of public money to developing countries. I think there are many, many companies that have not understood the financial issues for themselves in adapting to climate change. So transition risk, just the amount of assets at risk under different scenarios of adaptation. And I think that that's a massive catch up. We tend to have the private finance discussion around mitigation. And then secondly is that certainly the companies that I talk to don't believe that they've got access to the talent pipeline that they need for this green market that we're going to be building. And the education systems in most developed countries, let alone most developing countries, are not producing or not yet investing in the blue collar and white collar skills that we need for that green economy. We better catch up quickly. It's a burning bridge. It's going to be a break on how fast we can go. And I mean, I'm living and working in the US at the moment. I mean, I just don't see anybody like screaming about the burning bridge except for the private sector. So that's something where we need to come together too. Yep. Brilliant calls to action and great clarity. I knew we'd have gone on for a lot longer. But thank you so much, all three of you. And we're capturing a lot of these key points because this is not going to stop here. Thank you. I'll ask you to sort of leap like gazelles off the stage. And while they are elegantly descending, points that Jessica raised about anger, as Tony can confirm, we were talking about people and power just beforehand. It's a huge issue. And as I mentioned, we have a global community at CISL. So although we are very cognizant that so many people cannot possibly be in Glasgow, we wanted for the first time to put together a short video of the call to action and the views that are coming from around the world in some members of the network. So we're going to bring the video up now. And after the video, my wonderful colleague Nina will launch the next panel on what's next. So we could bring the video up now, please. At COP, we have the opportunity to finally get on agreement on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, addressing carbon markets, and enjoying that the targets set six years ago are achieved. For the first time, there are different countries on the earth have a common objective because we want to restore the balance of the environment. We want to stop the global warming and we are now in the center of the world. The main opportunity in COP26 that this is the last chance for us to commit to below 1.5 degrees, we have seen how the global crisis can affect the global economy and world leaders have to act now for the mitigating and adaptation to climate change because we wouldn't be able maybe to control any unforeseen climate crisis in the future, unlike we did with the COVID crisis. The first opportunity is that there is global awareness created because of the, you know, of the climate extreme. The second one is that there is improved scientific evidence with high level of confidence that can provide strong foundation for decision making. The third one is that this technological solutions, the advancement in technological solutions, getting more affordable and more accessible. It's a big opportunity to address every other crisis because they are all interconnected. If we talk about justice, social justice, food production, the loss of biodiversity, all crises are connected. So our big opportunity is to rethink everything. I think the main barriers to change is ultimately this silo-driven mentality where you've got civil society, state, academia and the private corporation all saying very different things. Ultimately, we need to bring these four spheres of influence together to shape positive change. And I believe that we are all getting to a mindset where the time to act is now and what better way than seeing civil society, state, corporation and academia pulling together to make a difference. The net zero transition pathway touches upon all parts of the economy. So we're all collectively responsible from the producers, to the exporters, to the consumers. But things are just not moving fast enough. The current carbon budget, like for the world, is shrinking year on year. We not only need to invest in nature-based solutions, for example, but we also need to ensure that countries and sectors are applied by their commitments in a consistent and transparent way. Mandatory disclosure and reporting alike global standards should be introduced without delay. One of the most common barriers is the limited knowledge of meant-level management of climate-risk-related issues, their consequences on business and even on their personal life. Another common barrier, but also an opportunity, is the lack of access of funding and capital expenditure for increasing energy efficiency in operations. The main barrier, I think, is the lack of commitment at different levels, especially by, you know, like developed countries, because they have commitment towards developing countries. There are more promises and, you know, very ambitious promises, but there is less action. On the other hand, developing countries have more strategies and action plans for classic implementation. We need to translate these promises into actions and strategies into investment plans and actions on the ground. Those most affected by the crisis are now not being heard. And those looking to make a change did not have a purpose. I would summarize as three pieces. Number one, polarization of developments. Number two, politicalization of relationship or country-to-country relationship in terms of differences as a humankind. And number three, procrastination in our discussion and actions in terms of the climate. I'm expecting from the leaders to keep the momentum of climate change commitment and mobilizing finance and also utilizing COP 27, which most probably will take place in Egypt, in Africa, to concentrate more on the global south and the climate action on the global south. So both COP 26 and COP 27, I'm expecting a lot from leaders to commit more to climate action mitigation and adaptation. I want to see more integration of the scientific approaches to decision-making. And I would really like to see realistic targets associated with dates that are not 2050 or 2030. We do need to be looking at short-term and measure impact and progress in the short-term. We are living in an increasingly dense world and spatial sustainability needs to be a counterpoint to social sustainability. We need to think about cultural preservation and the ability to preserve who we are and understand where we are going. Finally, let's use technology wisely to ensure that it enhances our lives and also can actually help reduce our overall consumption and thus lead to a greener future for future generations. This journey has to be as inclusive as possible and create new jobs, sectors and provide opportunity for enhanced prosperity. The most significant contribution that we can make to tackling climate change is financing the transition to net zero. Financing is key to building a sustainable future and one of the most important aspects is to ensure that it flows to all parts of the world. The recent wave of net zero emissions pledges from many countries is most promising and this momentum needs to increase. But ensuring that pledges are translated into immediate actions, long-term strategies and of course effectively implemented is the type of leadership we need now. We need leaders who believe in the science behind climate change. We need leaders at every level, young and seasoned, who bring their passion and action into the communities who most need support. This isn't a question of racing against the clock. We need to stop and restart with a sustainable mindset. Thank you very much. If I can introduce our absolutely wonderful next panel to come up and take their seats, we've got, hello and welcome, we've got an absolutely difficult job today of trying to look into the what's next. So maybe reflecting on the video that we've just listened to, Dr Wu was talking about polarization, politicisation and vaccination. So how do we change that to institutionalise immediate action and to look at it being inclusive? So I guess we have quite a bit to talk about. I will actually come and stand over here a little bit because otherwise the panel can't see me and I can't see the panel. So I'll try to rotate between the both of us. We've got a really interesting and actually really cross industry panel with us. We've got finance, we've got the business here. So let me introduce them and we'll hopefully have a fascinating discussion, including hopefully some questions from the online as well as some questions from the audience. So we've got with us today Wendy Clark, global CEO of Densu International and a member of our business transformation group. Paul Spence, director of strategy and corporate affairs at EDF and a member of the CLG. Gonzalo Sainz Demir, director of climate change and alliance at Iberdrola, also a CLG member. And we've got Janet Pope, chief of staff and group director for sustainable business Lloyd's banking group. And Lloyd's a member of CLG, the banking environment initiative as well as a strategic partner. So lots of titles there. So if we start that conversation, so reflecting on what you've seen today, reflecting on what you've seen over the last week, what action do we need to take? How do we convert that commitment into action in a relatively immediate future? So if I start with Wendy. Well, I thank you first of all for being here and secondly, we apologize to the microphone man if we sat in the wrong seats. I think that hopefully he's got it right. Look, I mean, I think that last panel was so articulate and so clear about the, it needs to be urgent. It needs to be science-based and bound. It needs to be measurable and there needs to be accountability. And so I think, you know, sort of taken together, we have to make sure that that science-based targets are on a pathway to 1.5 degrees. But there's a little bit, you know, that can get lost a lot when we see the announcement of targets. I think we have to do more frequency of measuring. So we've heard we've got to bring them much more into near-term. We can't just have long-term projections and not be measuring in the near-term because we can lose track of things. You know, I'm the first American voice in the room. You know, we say what gets measured gets done. Good American euphemism and I think we've got to measure more frequently. And I think to what Tony said, we've got to be able to create the demand in the marketplace. So a marketer sits here and goes, look, we can create demand in the marketplace. We can create consumer desire. That's what we do. And if you create the demand, the rest of the ecosystem will flex accordingly. So we see our role very specifically about that consumer behaviour change, that consumer demand that will then bring the full ecosystem, you know, in the direction that we need it to be. Thank you. And maybe if I go to Janet next. Yeah, I think there's something about keeping it real and quite a lot of the discussion that we have that certainly that we have in financial services, but I'm sure it's not restricted to us is around somebody earlier mentioned the enemy of the good being trying to get things perfect. And we spend a lot of time talking about it's just so difficult to manage and we need convergence of measurement standards and so on. And yet we need to be doing things now. And if we can't get to perfection in terms of measurement standards, it shouldn't stop us from getting started with some of the really critical things that we need to do. And I think that resonated from the video just now, this isn't about paper decarbonisation. It's not about sending signals to institutions that they can find ways of making their reporting look good. It's actually about making a difference in real people's lives as of tomorrow. I think the speech that has moved me most during the course of the last few days was Maria Motley, Mia Motley, sorry, the Prime Minister from Barbados who said a two degree rise is a death sentence for island nations. And here we are thinking, you know, the difference between 1.5 and 2, you know, we're on to directory for 3+, but the difference between 1.5 and 2 is still a death sentence for those island nations. And that's a very heavy fact that we have to, I think, keep close to our hearts and know that unless we can arrest that, then we're not making the progress that we need to make. So keep it real. And on that point, Gonzalo. OK, good morning to everyone and thank you for inviting us. I have to say to congratulate the co-politics group because for us we are members of the alliances and the co-politics group I think is the most powerful alliance, a more practical alliance in Europe supporting this kind of vision. I want to start saying that for us we are visualising at the COP really important things. We are visualising the terminology revolution that makes this change possible. And we are in the power sector, but also for the transport sector for everything. We are seeing that the 10 biggest economies of the world have presented objectives of net zero for mid-century. We are seeing growing pressure from the investors on fossil fuels and this is extremely important because we are showing that the financers are internalising the climate risk and finally we are seeing growing support for action, especially from young people saying that a radical change is possible if we want. However, what do we need? I mean, the spirit is not enough. So we need for us is implementation. We need policies now because we have the technologies now and yes, this decade is here but we have to start it now. This year, next year, the following year. So I think in this context we need what the European Union has presented, a set of policies to achieve the 2030 and 2050 objectives. Apart from that, we need action from all agents, not just government. We need action and commitment from firms, from banks, from regional government, from cities. And the last thing, we need objectives and measures to achieve it. And the last thing is we have to build or to strengthen alliances. So because the changes is so... We are talking about changing the whole economy and in particular the energy sector and this is not easy. So we need to build alliances, to build alliances on short term policies, on the closure of coal or the carbonisation transport sector, no alliances on 20 feet. But alliances are measures for the next five years. That's quite cool, Paul. Crikey, come last and the following of the first outstanding panel. I mean, I have to say, I mean just reflecting, I mean we've heard a lot about ambition, we've heard a lot about the engagement of businesses and finance and about urgency and yesterday was the energy day of COP and there was a really, really clear, really strong message that I heard from pretty much everywhere that we need to get on with it at real pace across both deploying, the proven technologies, the things we know that work today and getting those going really quickly, as well as working on the things that we hope will work for the future and developing those at real pace. And I guess to follow some of the same themes, I mean, a sector, the energy sector I think has the ambition, a lot of us are, and you know, Iberdrola, EDF, members of organisations like SBTI, you know, race to zero, and phasing alcohol, all of that, you know, that's real tangible action. There's then the industrial action to do the next piece of the thing, which is, you know, let's get on with building the things, the wind farms, the solar farms, the new care power stations, the things that we know are low-carbon that we need to do, and at the same time, let's make sure that we're doing that in a way that is working for the people who are involved in this. You know, there's technology, but there is also people and that's the communities that are involved, that's the customers who we want to work with organisations like Wendis, you know, the next phase is going to be a lot about engaging people in changing their lives, changing their lifestyles, choosing things like an electric vehicle rather than an internal combustion engine, choosing a heat pump rather than a traditional boiler system, choosing to use less rather than cranking up the temperature and, you know, keeping a T-shirt on. All of those are changes that involve our customers in changing the way that they work, and that, you know, Gonzalo's point about collaboration groups to make that happen. And the group that hasn't been talked about a lot, and I would just emphasise as the final thought, is the people inside the organisations, inside our own organisations, you know, we've been doing a lot of work this week, but before with organisations like Frescu Climath to look at whether or not we can take, we can turn the 1,000, sorry, 10,000 people inside our organisation into 10,000 activists working in the same way that Greta and the activists are going to be marching outside, is turning our people into those activists as well. Thank you, and actually, if we start as we mean to go on, right, we've spoken about the wood, but I'm going to rephrase the name of the panel a little bit, and I'm going to re-concentrate us on the how. How? What are we going to start doing now and how are we going to pass this? So, reflect on the videos that Dr. Aberfymol talked about realistic short-term targets and action. So, how do we institutionalise that action now? Wendy? Well, I'm going to pick up where Paul just left off because I do think you can start from a business perspective inside out. We're members of the WEF, Alliance of CEO Climate Change Leaders. Those 90 of us signed that open letter. We represent 8 million workers across our 90 companies. So, you start with that 8 million, right, and we start to say, by the way, two-thirds of the workforce in the next five years will be millennials. Their activism is already wired in. So, we are looking at transitioning workforces anyway that are already acting and creating expectations of us as business leaders. So, I think the easiest way to get started is start inside out, start with your own people. Equip them to lead and live and play in a different way with different, more sustainable, restorative lifestyles and behaviours. They go into the world then and start to populate. Obviously, from our little space in the world where we work with clients, we work with 95 of the top 100 advertisers in the world. Think about then that sort of start as a starting place. If 95 of the top 100 spenders in advertising in the world started to spend differently around their products, their services, really driving different consumer behaviour, creating those green markets that Tony was talking about, then you start to move forward. So, I think we've all got to start where we are. Think about our immediate sphere of what we can impact, measure and hold ourselves accountable to making that progress within those spheres, and then you start to create those concentric circles and create that wake of opportunity that starts to move in the marketplace. So, that's what we're doing. Change is here now. Millennials are here now as well. And I suspect there's a lot more millennials with this room than we think. And actually following up on that people point and picking up on Nasa Gwyl in this yabour who was talking about connecting climate to people and ensuring that this is a just transition, a gentle collaboration is that question to you. Yes, of course. I think some of the territory has been covered, but... So, we're an organisation. We have close to 30 million customers. And whilst, of course, we've got to do all the efforts that you've just described around making sure that our people internally are really up for this journey and are big enthusiasts and out there advocating, we've got the connections with those 30 million customers that we need to work with too. So, and there's a big effort there, I think, which is incumbent on all of us to guide, not just to put the products out there and say, come and buy these, but to guide our customers in terms of some of the challenges that they're facing. And at Lloyd's Bank, we have a very significant market share of small business companies, you know, there, still struggling to find their way out of the pandemic. They're not thinking, you know, the local hairdresser isn't thinking at the moment about using less water and how they manage their carbon footprint. They're thinking about whether they can afford to stay open and pay their business rates next month. And so, working alongside our customers on helping them to find their way through their transition, there's a big need for education and information on the right product to make it easier for people to embrace the challenges that they know they need to face into. So, bringing up that client relationship function so that they're able to help their clients move. That's an absolutely fantastic point. And I guess directing a slightly more difficult question to, and reflecting on Mr Fami's comment to the Gonzalo, Gonzalo, how do we bring global south into this conversation in a much more structural way and how do we support the transition there? Okay, the first thing I want to say is that the technological revolution of clean solution makes easy transition because nowadays, for instance, with the technological revolution of renewables, today we answer the cheapest way to produce electricity in, I don't know, 95% of the world. So, this is possible everywhere. But, I think we need four things. The first, if we want investments in those countries and taking into account our capital intensive investment, we need an adequate framework to foster those investments. And I'm talking about fiscal policies, the financial policies, fair transition policies, of course. So, this is one thing. The second thing we need is to assure the delivery of the 100 billion euros to support these countries on mitigation, but also on adaptation. It was mentioned that adaptation is, they are suffering the worst effect of climate change. We are causing the effects. The third thing is technological transfer to these countries. So, we have the technologies in the power sector, in the transport sector, in the building sector, even in the hard to obey sectors. So, we have green hydrogen that we think is going to be competitive to decarbonise this hard to obey sector in six years because of the reduction of cost of electrolysis and the reduction of cost of renewables. And going to that, I think it's very important that those countries realise that they can take advantage of their natural resources because they have renewables. They have a lot of renewables to those countries. And, for instance, green hydrogen can be more competitive in many developing countries, that in northern countries that have less solar or less sun or less wind. Fabulous, and actually just following up on that, adaptation and resilience point. So, how are we going to be building in adaptation and resilience into our day-to-day? So, I mean, we're living through a very real illustration at the moment of the challenges of what needs to... what's happening and what needs to change in the energy sector. We're seeing unprecedented costs of energy at the moment. And, for me, it's illustrating a couple of things because there's a lot of talk about the topic of resilience, where it's about physical resilience and our assets at risk of flooding and have we designed for that future or putting in the protections that are needed. But resilience is also about financial resilience. And we need to be thinking about an energy system in the future where the risks are properly understood, where we've analysed those risks. I mean, I think Rachel talked about that earlier on, the need for corporates to focus on what the risks are and to make allowance or to do things about those risks. I would also argue for the need for organisations, whether they're governments or whether they're companies with broad shoulders to take some of the risks. I mean, the UK energy sector at the moment, we're seeing a lot of companies failing. I would argue for some of that because they had not the capability to take on some of the risks that we're going to see in future. But the really important thing is that we don't allow us that to knock us off course. We collectively need to stay the course through the current period. We know what we need to do. We know the things we need to deploy. Actually, we know that we need to deploy that faster. In the energy sector, in the UK, we're about a quarter of a way to what we need to do if we are going to have a secure, reliable, affordable and sustainable energy system in the future. We've got a decade, maybe a decade and a half to get the other three quarters of the way there. We've got to really accelerate. So that's what we've got to do to create resilience is go faster than we've done so far. And the acceleration of that transition will also leave a little bit more room for the global south to start coming up and to start developing. If the north uses up too much of the resource that remains available, then it's not going to be there for the south. We, in the north, have the responsibility to go as fast as we possibly can to help. And we will see a lot more of the social fishers effectively that we will be seeing today as well. So I'm very keen to have it as a conversation around the room as well as with the panellists, because I assume we can talk among ourselves for ages. So let me just first start and ask Annabelle. We've got nothing coming from the online so far. Brilliant, always good to know. Annabelle, have we got any questions in the room? Very faintly. So maybe if you stand up and project the voice, which is not very COVID-like, but... Hi there, my name is Jen Hamilton. What I find interesting about the discussions today generally on this topic is a lot of the discussions around finance are, I guess, aimed at, you know, the mobilising of finance. It's aimed at the, I guess, the large corporates. So I thought it was interesting, the point that Janet made about the smaller businesses and how they cope. But what I'm even more interested in, I guess, is the mobilisation of consumer finance. So, you know, how we all spend our money is much more powerful, I think, than anything else. But we haven't got that transparency that we've been talking about at the public company reporting standards level. And if we could drive that consumer labelling on products, on services, so that consumers can make comparisons, I think we would really accelerate. But how do we do that? How do these institutions and the panellists in the jobs that they do help drive that? Because if we can do it for public health and food labelling, why can't we do it on carbon? That's, I mean, I think that's a supremely important point because we've also started with a regulation on the pension side so that when we're actually looking to our pensions we know what we're investing in. But maybe if I pass this to Janet? Yes, of course. And then for... Wonderful. Yes, so a couple of disconnected observations really. One is, I think there's a real role for innovation. So we've been rubbing shoulders with all manner of people that we've never met before nor expected to be in conversations, holding a glass of wine with. And I was talking to somebody from a big tech company the other day about an innovation that they're planning to enable you to hold up your smartphone with something a bit like a QR reader and take a read on what the carbon content of the thing was that you were about to buy, whether it's that new pair of trousers or the packet of tofu that you were about to pick off the supermarket shelf. And I mean, that would be amazing, wouldn't it? Just so that people were properly informed about the carbon content of the thing they were about to buy. And then a point I've been dying to make for ages is around the fact that none of us can do this by ourselves. So here's a Lloyd's story that makes it very real for me. Almost exactly this time last year, I was trying to get our motor fleet people and Lloyd's has got the biggest motor fleets in the UK, our motor fleet people to really embrace electric vehicles and come up with targets for how many electric vehicles we were going to have on the road within short time frames. And the conversation was all around, well, we don't really know what the residual value of electric vehicles is and the technology keeps changing and it's a big risk and of course, we'll go as fast as we can, but that wasn't fast enough. And then through discussions with government, which is this kind of collaboration point, you get to a place where the UK government comes out earlier this year and says, no new internal combustion engines after 2030. And so as soon as February, the conversation with those same people was, I don't know what the residual value of internal combustion engine cars is going to be, you were getting quite worried. I mean, it was like somebody had flicked a switch and if we'd not been collaborating with government trying to figure out where government could help us take this, government can send really powerful signals to capital to tell it where to move to. And so with these kinds of dialogues and with pressure continuing to be brought to bear, I think we all move forward. I mean, we move forward collectively. Nobody can kind of stick their neck out and say, we Lloyd's Bank are going to fix it. We need everybody else to be in the room with us trying to make it happen. But thank you for your question. No, if I can, I mean, just to build on Janet's points, I mean, I completely agree about, you know, the fact that, you know, it would be fantastic if we can get to the point where, you know, whether it's with a QR code or whether it's product labelling in the same way I can tell the calorie count if I could tell the embedded carbon. But that needs collaboration. It needs my customers. You know, if I'm making the energy that my customers are using, I need to be able to give them a clear and understandable view of that, that then needs to feed into their processes. So, you know, that point about, you know, we are all somebody's scope three becomes really important. And, you know, the thing that makes me positive is I am seeing an accelerating pace of activity in the UK from organisations like the Competition and Markets Authority, from the government to develop the standards that people can rely on, that customers can rely on, and that we can use as a basis for some of that reporting. You know, we need, again, to accelerate that work. I mean, it was running on a relatively sluggish timetable. Collectively, I think, again, it's an area where we can collaborate. If we're putting pressure because our customers are demanding that we give them that information earlier, then the politicians will move faster. I just add on our own research UK research by 2030 consumers mindsets and demands are shifting so dramatically by 2030. The majority of consumers will be buying and brands and from brands and companies that have an outward position around decarbonisation and sustainable good. And so, you've seen, we're in minimal years now, we're going to go from a minority of consumers feeling that way to a majority. And that, again, that consumer demand will get the attention of companies and brands to do the right thing. This app has been talked about for years. We've been talking, you know, I was at Coca-Cola several years ago, we were talking about a similar app. So it's just got to happen. There's a little bit of it is the ability to actually know that data. I don't think, it's not a problem of technology. We could rock up with an app in a week. It's do you have the transparency? Do you have the understanding of your value chain to really be able to say at the point of sale here's what's inside this singular box of something? And I think it's the hard work behind it. So I think one of the pieces we've all talked about intersectionality, which I think is obviously huge. The other thing I think we've got to be careful of and that was mentioned in the earlier panel around greenwashing, I think we have to make sure that the narrative people, the people who can talk it and say it are side by side with the technicians on this. Because that's what's happening in that gap is our narratives get really good and then our actions are missing and we can't confuse progress with activity here. And so I think we've always got to, when we talk to business, that's why I hang around with Anna Lungley right there because she's our technician and she doesn't let my narrative get ahead of where our actions are. And so that's how we got to press business is to not just say it, again sort of all the pledges wonderful, where is your math? Where's your spreadsheet? Where's your measurement? Where's your accountability? What have you done lately? Talk in terms of narrative and accomplishment and don't let those two detach. Brands can do that though, they absolutely can do that and consumers want it. So you've seen again the ecosystem is absolutely moving but we've just got to keep it connected and not let that intersectionality fall apart. And actually picking up on that point we did a really interesting piece of research a couple of years ago with our investment leaders group. Surveying American consumers mind about their preferences on investment funds and if they were able to see effectively sustainability information on their investment funds alongside the profitability information and by far and large if they see that information at the same time they will pick the more sustainable fund. So the consumers are not only going to get there but already hear a lot of them so we just need to shove that tech up. There was a question in that corner of the room. Thank you. Hi, good morning. My name is Owen. I work for Nestle based in Switzerland. You kind of slightly stole my thunder with your comment there at the end around investing but I'll tweak my question a bit to make it slightly different. So I guess, you know, is there a need for a new compact with investors around the transition costs and the expectation on margin that goes with that because if you have very, you know, you've seen it in the energy sector, lots of disruption, lots of increasing cost, you see it in the food sector as well, input costs are rising very dramatically and at the same time we have to decarbonise, we have to stick to a consistent path otherwise it will become impossible. So I guess my question to the panel is what's your view on how investors are balancing risk and reward based on the need for consistency and reducing carbon emissions, whatever the short-term headwinds are facing publicly listed companies. Can I say something? Of course. I can talk about the power sector. But in the power sector we have experienced a tremendous change in the last 10 years. And we are seeing now that investors are not supporting or are not investing in fossil fuels not for social responsibility because it's climate risk. And the point now is that the green solutions and this didn't happen 10 years ago, 10 years ago with the recovery after the last crisis supporting renewables meant a loss of competitiveness and profitability. But now it's the opposite. So we are seeing that investors are internalising the risk of climate change in their decisions and they are supporting clean technologies. So for us finance is not a problem. I would say we have the technology is the most competitive one. We are ready to invest there is money around what we need are policies. And this is the key. Policies is what changes the behaviour of firms and the behaviour of consumers. So we need a set of policies and coherent policies but we need to change it's like that all policies. We need to change the fiscal policies based on the political base principle. We need to change the economic policies because those policies were approved for a fossil fuel economy. And we have to change all these policies and for transition of course. But I think Europe is going to the restoration because it makes sense. So my view is that if we move in this direction we have seen a positive development but if we see more implementation and with policies and with adequate leadership for politicians and also from business and with the technology there we can move to a more sustainable more prosperous and fair economy. Can I just give a tangible power example of that which is a few years ago EDF in the UK we signed up to the powering past coal alliance and at the stage we did that we had here in the UK two very large coal power stations which were being used during the winter to keep our lights on. And the UK very sensibly put in place the arrangement with a price on the carbon that was being emitted and progressively that carbon price caused us to look at the operation of the coal station and to say it no longer made sense to run it as much as we were and progressively to get to a point where one of those stations has already closed and the second station will close September by September next year and it's running a tiny portion of the time. And that's all because there was the right financial framework in place the right policy arrangements in place. From our perspective that made the investment decision a relatively straightforward thing. Then we had to think very carefully about how do we manage a just transition for the people who were working in that station in those stations. How do we find them the next career working on the green technologies that are going to replace coal in the system and again we've done I'm very proud of the way that we have worked through that with our people, with our unions helping the 400 people in the station that's already closed to move on to the next thing. And again why did we do that? We did that because it was the right thing to do but also it was the economically right thing to do because we needed those people with those skills in the growth areas, in the new areas. So with the right policy framework it's easier for business to do the right thing and our job is therefore to help government in the UK, governments everywhere set up that Tony talked about making the markets. That's I think what it's all about making the markets and then the capital will get deployed and the returns will be there and the investors will put their money into those things. Nina, because I think there's another really important people angle there around trying to reframe the losers as people who stand to benefit from the changes that are being worked through. So Paul's example is a really good one. Another one which I think I learned from CISL some time ago was the coal workers in the Ruhr region who were turned from people. Who would in all conscience send human beings underground to dig out coal? We've been doing it for centuries but it's just the worst thing imaginable, isn't it? And those coal workers are now working on landscaping, making tourism facilities, filling lakes with fish, just making something that's much more pleasant than human beings going underground to dig out coal. So there's something about re-engineering the whole value chain but also thinking really hard about the people who are at the centre of some of those equations and if you can turn them from being framed as losers because they're losing their jobs in the mines and turn them into people who are doing much more agreeable jobs for the future then that has to be a win-win all round. I just put a button on it as someone has to sit on those investor calls every three days on the margin delivery. So investors expect the margin delivery from publicly traded companies and they expect the ESG transition which means in the middle of those two thoughts is innovation and creativity and ingenuity and rethinking your business because you are not going to get margin relief but you also are not going to get relief on the questions around ESG, right Felisa? So we've got to rethink, right? We've got to innovate and we've got to change how we're operating because you're going to get both of those questions. So we have four questions in the room and I'm just going to point to there's a lady in the back over there then and I'll take three and then hopefully we'll have one more to come. Hi, my name's Kate Thee, I work for RAP. We're an NGO, we work with consumers and businesses around circular economy. I'm interested, we run a couple of campaigns in the UK influencing UK consumers on sustainable lifestyle choices. I was really interested in wondering what you were saying about the power of consumers making choices. I'm interested in your views on what might be the risk points over the next few years where we might lose that momentum and buy in with consumers. There's obviously like economic weather around price pressures and loads and loads of other factors and as we plan our work with sustainable lifestyles and citizens we're kind of trying to think about what's on the horizon and what should we be looking for and thinking about in the future. Thank you, Beth, there's just here. No, no, it's on the phone. Sorry, that was a good timing, wasn't it? Yeah, great session, so thank you. James Stacey, I'm a partner at ERM. I'm also a fellow with CISL. I just had two questions if that's allowed. The first one. You've got pen. The first one relates, it kind of connects the two panels really in that we heard about anger in the first panel and earlier in the conversation you were talking about how we mobilized the consumer. And I guess my question is, how do we close the gap between the anger that is growing within society and the consumer choices that those same people take day to day? How do we close that gap? Second question is quite different actually and it relates to the capital markets and particularly to debt finance. We've done a huge amount of work with banks over the last two to three years around their response to the requirement to evaluate climate-related financial risk and then how that has shifted into aligning lending books with temperature outcomes, whether that be Paris-aligned or net-zero-aligned, etc. And indeed the carbon compass that JP Morgan issued is an example of that kind of work if you've seen that. My question, I guess more to the energy companies on the panel here, are you seeing that kind of really quite forensic and sophisticated analysis now of the lending book by banks start to feed through in terms of a lower cost of capital for the low carbon projects that you are building out as on the other side of the equation high carbon assets are now seeing a higher cost of capital or indeed a challenge to get capital at all. Thank you, James. And if we can... James McPherson, but a super short one, okay? Literally super short because we're almost done. James McPherson, over there. James McPherson, CISL. So we've heard already today that addressing the social dimension is going to be key in being able to effectively decarbonise. And I think the same is true for investing in nature as well. How can companies make sure that when they're investing for decarbonisation that they're also getting things right for society in nature too? Perfect. You've got the nature. So we've got two consumer ones which I'm assuming going to go to Wendy. We've got the energy one and we've got the nature one and I'm assuming nature is going to have to go to Jenna then. Wendy, really quickly on consumers. I mean, in the macro and the aggregate much like Jessica was talking about the two sides of the anger I talk about the two sides of the risk. So yes, there are certainly risks around will we truly drive that demand and that adoption? Will those new markets materialise? Will companies really act with transparency? I mean we can go through the risks so it will happen. But on the other side thinking about supply chain availability, thinking about workforce and labour availability is an equal risk. And again, if two-thirds of our workforce are going to be millennials who are going to join an opt-in and out of companies based on their mission and their purpose you may not have a workforce if you don't make this transition. So I actually feel that the risks are on both sides of this equation. I think we've got to do a better job at highlighting the risks of not actually moving into being that type of brand, that type of company and the vulnerability of you actually being able to source the supply and value across your supply chain and your workforce. So I'd answer that one that way. The second consumer question was... The second consumer question was how do we close the gap between anger and consumer choices? Yeah, well, I think again to median age at my company is 27, median. So we have 45,000 people median. So I work around this generation so much that that is palpable every single day. If you are immersed with millennials and GenZ right now, you feel their anger and you feel their demand and expectation that the brands are going to move in this direction. So I actually... I think that anger can convert very nicely into consumption with again transparency of labeling but Dennis was talking about earlier about transparency of commitments. I think you're not going to see again by 2030 majority of consumers will shift their consumption and investment. So we're talking about less than 10 years now of that actually being a real reality and of course that's going to continue to drive in the interim intervening you. So I don't think you're going to see that gap for much, much longer. Energy question? Shall I take it? I mean, is there evidence that in the cost of capital for the projects either for a higher cost of capital for projects that have a higher climate impact, climate risk or a lower cost for those that are travelling in the right direction? Absolutely. It's part of what we're asked all the time. And you know, as one, I think of Europe's largest issuers of green bond debt, we at EDF have seen that there is a real appetite where we can show that there are projects that are about investing in low carbon options in wind farms, in solar panels. Then there is real appetite for that. And you know, with the appetite comes a competitive market and therefore a lower cost for those projects. To complement what you are saying, I completely agree, there is also this regulatory certainty or regulatory risk. And for instance, I think one of the challenges I have is like how the governments are dealing with short-term crisis. For instance, we are seeing the economy, I mean the energy crisis, price crisis in Europe due to natural gas price increase. And how to deal with this short-term turbulence that we are going to have it in the future? Because I mean we have to in to faster, we have to go to a faster decarbonisation and faster development of renewables back today, we have this. So these short-term decisions will influence a lot in the regulatory risk on the cost of capital of investment. So the way governments deal with short-term effects in crisis have to be aligned with these long-term objectives and decisions. Thank you. And maybe Janet, picking up on the cost of capital and nature. I don't think I need to add on the cost of capital. I think one of the challenges for financial institutions is that it's kind of easier to go after the new things than it is to transition the old ones. And so it's been relatively straightforward. I said that my colleagues will kill me, but it's been relatively straightforward to build a really big position in wind power because it's new and it's exciting and the proposition to make a good deal of sense but actually helping existing customers to transition their operations towards net zero is whole lot harder and that's the challenge we need to face into. Just on the point about nature, I mean it has to be about climate and biodiversity, doesn't it? And I promised a call out for one of my fellow CISL students with whom I studied earlier this year, who this week put her whole life savings into trees because she thought it was the right thing to do. She was so buoyed up by being a cop. So in a way it made Lloyd's 10 million that we were investing in trees over the next 10 years. It's a lot of money, but it's not our whole life savings. And so there's something about individuals coming forward and really facing into some of those challenges. And so Laura Gelder Robertson, I gave you a call out, well done. Thank you very much. And that's actually a wonderful, yes? Can I just come back? I mean the question about anger, if I may, I think there is something about, I think we all know that we're talking about a massive retooling of our economy. And for something that large, for the amount of capital that's going to be needed, need to be invested, despite the fantastic innovation, I think it's really important that collectively we are honest about what it's going to take. Because I mean nothing generates anger more than people who don't tell the truth and then who are found out some time later. So I think all of us have a responsibility to tell the truth. And that is a fantastic point at which we end this panel. Thank you very much. You've been wonderful. Thank you to the audience for their interactivity. And I'll pass it back to the players. Sorry, I won't, I assume you don't want me to start again. But then how that passes out into different areas of your businesses, for example on labelling and using new sort of tech and apps and what have you to reinforce that question of credibility and integrity to even at the consumer level. The second, which was really about that question to pick up on Janet's point about real. You know, I often like the phrase life and life chances. And of course it radiates back to the anger piece as well. Jason on the video talked about social sustainability and Wendy mentioned sustainable good. And I think probably, you know, I'm at the age of the dinosaurs. But when I started, there was a great shyness about using some of these terms, talking about values, talking about purpose in the way that is now becoming not only normal, but absolutely expected, not only by the Gen Z. I think in that sense, the question was also raised, I think by Jason on the video, culture was mentioned. And I think that's very important to think about that question of being human during this transition. Bearing in mind, we also have the digital revolution. There's a lot of things happening coming down the tracks, ordinary people in the street and at the scale of organisations and whole societies. So that literacy around culture and what is real is I think a really interesting thing that perhaps underpins some of these more business-oriented changes. And the third grouping was really around the public-private intersectionality, if you like. We heard from Rachel about the policy undercarriage and in lots of different ways. Janet, for example, how does government send the right signals to capital? Tony's points about the market. That becomes particularly important in some operating context where you have governments which for any number of reasons historical, cultural do less investment from the public budget in certain public goods, which puts even more imperative, as Tony said, on moving those markets and again doing it in a way that is credible, has integrity and is inclusive for the long term. And still under that public-private piece we then had the conversation around greenwash. I mean, we could have that alone could have had much more provocation if we'd had online views as well. I think one of the things that we see through our work in CSL some really thoughtful, very senior voices saying, how do we know we're not just helping people do the wrong thing better? And it's a really difficult thing because this is not about impuning people's individual commitment to the cause but unless we bring these parts of the system into alignment you have a real challenge. And so ESG for some people it's not the sex on the street it's BLs above, it's Satan because they see it as being a small part of a big portfolio so that the attention and the narrative building is around a subset of the whole as opposed to the fully green portfolio that needs to happen so that I would be happy if we got rid of the S word which is Turkey's voting for Christmas it's in the title of CISL but the very fact that we put in what can seem like some people as a qualifier the sustainability is a thing you add on as opposed to being the actual foundations is a really interesting journey I think we will travel. And then the point that came from the audience about the mobilisation I think it was you about mobilisation for computers it can be consumer finance and so on tied beautifully into Wendy's comments about how we are thinking about that narrative building and I think underpinning that for me is a very profound importance of respect respect not divided by generation or tech literacy or whatever but understanding that most people do want to be able to do the right thing better within their means and we need to really think about how those tools are it's not just about our buildings accessible for the differently abled it's about is the language we use accessible for those right across the spectrum so that we don't start from those who have in terms of educational opportunity or other and we are able from the get go to think of this as radically open in the journey we travel fourth and I'm nearly done was about I love this piece about the inside out from starting from what you can control and I think it ties to the nature of purpose we're seeing such interesting work within and beyond CISL and in international standards now we have an architect an author of that need standard in this room about thinking about the authenticity and the integrity of what we're doing and therefore starting with our people you know whether we're saying that all of Udef becomes you know activists and so on but actually just saying harness the capacity you know my favourite definition of innovation is unmet need meets untapped resource well I think that we tap very little of the extraordinary talent of workforces or maybe we overwork them for what we do ask them to do but actually the collective integration capacity is extraordinary in this space and last but not least I wanted to come back to this question of anger when I think about the tectonic plates ahead I talked about the nature climate crisis the people and power tectonic shifts and techno colonisation is tech for good or will our ownership and agency in the tech space also disappear in ways that we can see as a risk and so there is both people and powers a shifting paradigm and loss of trust but of course there's also people power and so that is a thing for us to hold in mind to get beyond these serial disconnects which we heard particularly on my panel about the fact that you know business is calling out for these jobs of tomorrow the upskilling but it's not coming down the tracks and at a personal level I was really shot when I moved to Cambridge a few months ago to discover it was the most unequal city in the UK and I think that's a call to action for us as people working within and through the CRZL networks that isn't tolerable it isn't tolerable to have a situation where life and life chances is so polarised by place and so the kinds of investments or decision areas that so many people in this room control are able to say is it a fatality that each new city that's currently being invested in in Africa or anywhere in the world is reproducing the same patterns of spatial and social inequity as have been a blight and are still a blight on America's landscape in particular so I think there are some really earthy real questions there to go back to the Janet the real that we can actually change and so on that's more than enough for me I've got one other thing because I picked up on things Janet again you talked about reframe the losers that idea that we don't when we talk about some people hate the word human capital because they think of commodification of the human so picking back up on that respect piece how do you actually deeply humanise what's going forward in a way that even if it's messy it doesn't have to be perfect it won't be well there'll be lots of mistakes but the actual commitment to it is something that is seen to be shared whether you sit around a government cabinet table a board table or you're an employee in one of these great companies who is given the agency to fly and that that is really excites me it all excites me to be honest you've been an amazing audience very engaged thank you for letting me fly where my little sort of sets of thoughts but much more importantly we now have coffee and I think cake at the back so again a rousing thanks to our great panellists to all of you everybody who's been listening virtually and now to the caffeine thank you