 Hello, thank you, Sebastian. Thank you for TSC for inviting Ed Link. I'm very glad to be with you online today and we've given the floor for this interesting topic. I'm in charge of our environment at Ed Link and as a member of the CSR team, I think it's very exciting to see how the corporate responsibility has become a growing interest recently for shareholders and basically for all types of investors. This is evidence globally. For example, if we look at the importance of related issues during the general assembly. But it's also something that we live day to day at Ed Link and basically I'm alive and proof of this because as a quick anecdote in the past years, it says CSR was one slide in the year-end results presentation hardly covered. And now there is a lot more interest in it. We've joined many Q&A sessions and I will attend the investor roadshow coming year since investors, shareholders are very getting more professional on this question and expectation. Before going to further details on this topic, let me give you a couple of words about Ed Link businesses and our CSR perspective for the one who don't know us very well. I tried just to change the slide. Yes, I think it works. So Ed Link is a private bond company, major player in the European transport with three main businesses, a Euro tunnel, a position of the growth tunnel, Dix Link, with four clothes, shuttle passengers, shuttle for freight, Euro star and freight trains. Also have Eurocourt, a rail freight operator with a market share of 5% to 6% in France, and a new project, a new business going live next year, which is a power connector for electricity between UK and Europe with eight, 20 million Euro revenues strongly impacted by both crises, Covid and Brexit, of course, compared to 2019 and a market privatisation above 7 million Euro. For us, the CSR is really seen as a source of value creation and dynamics for all the stakeholders. We have basically based it on five pillars, sustainable relation with customer and suppliers, environment, communities and local development, social and governance. And if we go, let's say, to have a quick insight on how we address CSR as an example of environment, an example of over. We have defined the plan, a short-term plan by 2025, based on three axes, very usual one, climate and energy, biodiversity and natural environment and waste management. We started from, let's say, track records. In fact, we are proud of our recent years with low emissions, 2 million tons avoided and a good carbon performance compared to alternative. We have set ambitious commitments for SCOP 1, 2 and 3 and it's really back up by a realistic and detailed action plan. So this is the way we address it for the environment. Vincenzo, can you put your presentation in full screen maybe because we see the... Yes, I thought it was the case. Let me... Is it better like this? Yes, that's great. Thank you very much. So more widely, talk about environment globally, I think CSR is not a straightforward topic. When it comes to shareholders, transparency and dialogue are key, of course, to confirm that they are aware of the challenges and consequences of CSR ambition, commitments and then achievement. So I propose not to share with you maybe three main challenges we are facing in this context and also the conviction we have tried to build on this. The first one is the fact that definitely we are still struggling to build a relevant perception of our actual ESG impact. We are like in the jungle of all rating agencies, labor standards, comparing very different sectors, very different countries. There is no standards in place, no higher rates like ESG standards. Shareholders are also their own assessments sometimes to assess our performance. And it brings some confusion, let's say, and could also lead to absurd situation. The real life example of this absurdity, MSCI, the labor rate agency, downgraded us a couple of years ago because of lack of information about how we treat indigenous population concerned by our own infrastructure. So I would be very happy to explain to my colleague in Calais that they are indigenous population, but it shows that it's very difficult to compare, let's say, a new power plant in China with a 30-year-old infrastructure in France. And despite our discussion and meetings, they were not welcome to change the technology. Another example, in the reporting, we bring some information about absolute water consumption, absolute water, so what? The trivia study, very little interest is put about absolute existing emission, the reduction in strength for CO2 emission in care, of course, but the absolute emission value doesn't care. For us, I think it's very low-rated at CDP, the graded D is by our electric powertrain. But to be positive in this respect, I think we can expect from the European taxonomies, the recent one, to bring more quality in which players' activities are really in line with the collective sustainable vision. Second point, and a very key decision to take, that is whether to act now modest or to promise very high, but later. So in other words, about short and long-term objectives. We are convinced that it's very key to have an ambitious plan, science-based target mandated, but realistic backup by a very detailed plan, a short-term plan, robust one. This is the case for us by 2025, with commitments corresponding to the life of the mandate of this activity and not pushing the responsibility to other executives in five, 10 or 20 years from now. So in other words, commitments to net zero 2015 cannot be the alpha and omega of the climate strategy at the compensated. Of course, for us, it could be very easy to find a choice. Net zero is maybe a couple of hundreds of thousand euros and the marketing clutch line is here. But I think this is really a matter of where you want to invest. And I can tell you that people on the ground who never advocates for us to expense money like this, but would prefer, let's say, focusing on, for instance, fighting against flooding, for instance, if we keep in the climate-related topic. Let us be clear though, our current action plan, even for 2025, will continue to deliver results beyond and I think running commitments will make sure the discipline and efforts will continue. To be also prepared for long-term, I think our other conviction here is really that it's necessary to have a look on the role system in which we play. We're thinking of what we call the global carbon shadow and not the Nicarbonne footprint. It's about avoided emission by our businesses. It's about embarking the world supply chain in our trajectory. Maybe this is a topic we can put at rest during the future. And the last topic for us, I think there's been a message I wanted to highlight this morning and I won't tell you a story here for us. ESG performance and especially decarbonization is a cost with no quick return on investment. Let us think about additional costs for biofuels. Let us think about acquisition of new engines. When talking about rail freight, this cost cannot be balanced unless the customer is ready for Christoppe, which is not the case for B2B, or that the tax context evolves strongly. We have here some hope with the European energy taxation update and of course a CO2 harmonic price we strongly promote. For the conclusion, I think this is perhaps the prerequisite for having a committed shareholder that we must assume that this transition is a matter of trade-off and that we have to work hard to make this trade-off very explicit, back up by its scenarios, calculation, throughout the world governance of the company with a clear share of our sustainability and back up with a couple of tools we could probably also address like that. Thank you very much. Thanks a lot, Dan-San, for this very interesting presentation. Let's move directly to the next speaker, Clémence Moulot, from Edmond de Rothschild, Asset Management. Hi everyone, thank you, Céla-San. I've been an AI analyst for seven years at Edmond de Rothschild and in the AI field for 15 years. I'm very glad to talk about shareholder engagement as it is at the heart of our AI policy. Indeed, we think that a constructive dialogue with companies at senior level is the best way to promote ESG-based practices and to help companies to transform their business model into more sustainability. So last year, we really updated our policy on engagement to be more effective, on three axes, governance, scope and goals. So on governance, before, as a lot of asset manager, engagement was in the end of the AI team and the asset managers of the fund concerned and we wanted to make it more transverse. And so we invited more team in our steering committee, like marketing, communication or compliance, of course. And this committee is now chaired by our CIO, so all engagement action are backed and validated by the direction. The steering committee validates all new action and follow ongoing actions and it's really more formalized. On scope, maybe you know that we had at the Maudred Shield a flagship fund, Tricolor-Rendon, which has an engagement label in 2009, so when it existed. So we have a long experience of engaging with French companies, but we wanted to have a more broader coverage. So now we can have a specific engagement on non-listed equities or maybe on non-European companies. And on goals, when we start an engagement action, we really have the goal we want to achieve with a very precise timetable. So it can be short-term goal like ESG transparency and medium goal, which will be ESG operational performance or a longer goal, which will be a more ESG strategy. All in all, we think that engagement will reduce the risk of the company, so it will increase the ESG performance and the financial performance, of course. Concretely, we can have individual or collective engagement. Individual is more with French companies because we know very well the management. And so, for instance, we had a lot of meetings with Sengoba and we formalized our points in a letter to show the points we thought were weaknesses for the group and had a bad impact on valuation. And we were very happy to see that this year the group put in place some measures that went in the good sense for us, like the separation of function of CEO and chairman or a more diverse executive and board. On a collective engagement, we had a long tradition of dialogue with the French oil and gas company total. We tried to file a resolution in 2011 on Tarsens. We continue since our engagement with them, specifically this last two years on climate, and to be more effective, we joined 10 other investors and filed a resolution at 2020 HGM to ask for more transparency on the climate strategy and more global and precise goals on CO2. The resolution had the support of 17% of shareholders and most of all, total continuously improves its strategy on the climate. So we thought it was a very successful engagement, even if, of course, it's not finished. And sometimes we joined a specific initiative to address more specific issues or to have an expert view. So for instance, we joined the nursing home statement coordinated by UNI Global Union. So they asked the nursing companies to set standards on social dialogue, wages, quality of care, as we saw that this sector was critical in today's life. We also joined Access to Medicine Initiative, the Anchorage Pharmaceuticals Initiative, as the Anchorage Pharmaceutical companies to systematically improve access to medicine in emerging countries and for neglected diseases. So to conclude, I would say we always try to be more effective with our time, as engagement takes a lot of time, and to have as much impact as possible. And we now need to improve our reporting because we know we as asset managers, we have to be accountable and to be transparent. As companies to be more transparent, we have to be too. Thanks a lot. Thank you very much, Clemence, for this very interesting insight. Let's proceed with Guillaume Lasser, who is Deputy CIO at Lab & Postal Asset Management. Guillaume. Thanks a lot, Sebastien. I said that I didn't have any slide, but in fact at the end I have some. Just to give a bit of context. So let me try to do that. Yes. Does it work? Yeah. Yes, perfect. You can put in full screen. Yeah. Is it okay? Yes, great. Last things to do this. It should be okay, right? No, actually, I think it was done before. This is better, right? Yes, that's perfect. Thanks. Okay. Thanks a lot. So yeah, I just want to, I won't talk a lot about the Lab & Postal Asset Management, but I think it's important to give you a bit of context of what we've done. And I would try to relay that to the previous speech we had from Augustin. We'll make an effort to link the two purposes. So in terms of context. So Lab & Postal Asset Management is one of the pioneers in the SRI field. What was important for us a few years ago is what it was to assess philosophy and tools in order to apply this philosophy. So what we decided to do is to define what was important as an investor in terms of extra financial matters and maybe our small difference with other people or other companies that we decided not to have only three pillars, ES and G, but a third one, which is essentially territories thanks to our Sanctu La Post, because it's a theme which is very important here in France for La Post. So we had territories. So it ended up with this acronym, which is great. But it was very important at the beginning to assess from a philosophical point of view what was important at every level in the company in terms of extra financial data. Once we have done that, the first thing we've done is focuses on capital allocation. So related to the paper of Augustin, meaning that how do we manage to incorporate this philosophy within our funds? So mainly capital allocation, we decided to be what we call 100% French SRI label and this is really coherent with what I said because the SRI label is essentially a way to give some process in order to integrate ESG purposes within a standard allocation with a fund for ESG that way. Once we've done that, the next step for us is the part on the right part of the slide, sorry, is to go one step beyond and which is mainly enhance our engagement policy. We are not doing, we are doing something in this and we were with Enmond Rochille, a set manager on this famous shareholder resolution last year. But what we want to do is to use shareholder dialogue and engagement as a true mean to our own ESG policy and I will give you some details on that. So that's why it's very important for us to have said this is just what is important for us on this slide. So it's mainly responsible governance is the famous G sustainable management of resources is good building to social impact energy transition among comment and what is specific to us is local territories development. When you want to do capital allocation, most of the time you need to have your proper analysis on those thematics on those themes and one way to do it is obviously to collect data in order to compare companies so to score them and etc. So this is a common way with this part of the SRI objective you can place but most of the time and I won't surprise the other audience the fact that you might have some lack of data on some of those things and clearly engagement not engagement but shareholder dialogue is a way for us to assess part of those things the local territory development for example is something which is not really addressed by data provider so this is a way for us engagement and shareholder is a way for us to learn from the companies from the issuers what we want to know directly and not through collecting data but the real issue for us is that so what I said we have four pillars so this is kind of philosophy we want or let's say what is important for us when we try to assess extra financial matters for a company but on the bottom part of the slide you have the real mean as an investor you have into your hands and that this is why we I will comment the presentation of Obusta most of the time we focus on focus on paper was focusing essentially on the left part of the slide so it's capital allocation so exclusion this is the example I gave when you just focus on one company because you said the other one is not complying with what you think so just forget about it and ESG integration is just standard capital allocation so how do you incorporate extra financial data within your capital allocation so this is a real way to have a framework to make a social investment but as Augustin said when you are a small big S now I know that I am a small big S so I have not a large part of capital as a sustainable fund a large part of capital to put in the market the question we have to ask ourselves is is it meaningful do we have a real impact on those companies and what is very surprising is the fact that engagement even if you are a small investor engagement is a real mean to change things when we talk about listed companies and the example given by Clermont Clermont is the good one with only a few parts of the capital we succeeded to change a bit the trajectory of one of the major company within the oligas sector and this is because we were in a position to discuss because we were just shareholders and so what is important is how to use that in an industrial way because this dialogue when you start to dialogue with those people you have to be at their level so you have to understand really understand what they are doing so it's a lot of work and as you might know when you are an investment company one of the things you are trying to do is to diversify your investment so you end up if you want to industrialize that you have to engage at least 500 companies and this is not possible so the real issue we have at least at Laban Postal Asset Management is to have a shareholder dialogue and an engagement policy which could be applied to this large amount of companies and today we haven't solved this issue because there is too much work to do and one of the consequence of that is we have to focus on large positions most of the time large positions are large capitalizations and my personal concern is that we will create a discrepancy on the market between large capitalizations and small ones meaning that we will engage in dialogue with big companies and we will give an edge to those companies and we will let it's not it's not obvious that what we are doing at their level would be spread to smaller companies we are also an investor into small cap companies and we see a real difference in the approach and not only because they are not able to have large teams to manage CSR policy and so on but also because they are they don't spend a lot of time on this subject because investors are not talking to them so and this is one of the the concern I have concerning engagement and it's mainly a problem of resources on our side and maybe a third point of which is important on engagement and but I already talked about it is it's a way it's not engagement it's a way to talk about themes which are not covered by data and I have three in mind where it's very difficult to have a coherent data across the board so in order to compare companies it's biodiversity human rights and net zero trajectories most of the time we have we can collect data about the current situation of the company but what we saw it's very important to understand what the company will do in the coming decades and this kind of data is quite hard to find so and I will stop there Thank you very much Guillaume for this very enlightening talk and thanks for raising some of the issues that you are facing we can discuss about that in the discussion now I would like to give the floor to Nathalie Tioley who is the managing director at Impact Finance Thank you Augustin and thank you to Catherine Thank you Sebastian and thank you Catherine for inviting us so I will quickly introduce Impact so Impact is the first impact rating agency we used to say that we are a second generation rating agency you know that the rating today is completely focused on ESG which is the mitigation of negative impact while Impact is going beyond ESG to measure a positive impact of any type of organization is listed or private a small cap or large cap so we are a big crop that means that we are also walking the talk so we apply to ourselves what we expect from the issuer we are working we are investor based meaning that we are only investor bank and asset manager so we don't have any contact with issuer to avoid conflict of interest so what we are doing is that we are taking a holistic view of both positive and negative impact of any type of organization we focus on outcome meaning that we are going to the result of activity mitigation versus focus on effort which is what ESG is looking for we are applying double materiality versus the single financial materiality applied by ESG we use the international standard framework of IMP which have been blessed by France recently in finance for tomorrow which decide to join the IMP standard we have a transparent methodology which is a fully open source because the impact management project where our methodology is inspired is fully available to any type of visitor which is not the case for ESG which are most of the time in-house methodology very short and non-transparent so consider as a black box today by investor so the challenge we are facing today is the data availability we need some more data today we consider that we are missing 10% of data for European issuer while it's more important for US issuer because they don't have the regulatory constraints we are confident with CSRD that we can improve the quality of data very soon because it will be more standardized today what we are collecting is data that need to be contextualized against international sectoral standard this is what we are doing and this is what is taking a lot of time because the data need to be controlled and verified before it is used in our score so we have a score on 1000 points which is built by using 5300 data points so a lot of work for example and to come back on getlink we have rated getlink and they have obtained 310 points which is very good rate compared to the 440 which is today 220 what we are viewing every day is that we are facing an economy which is in transition the importance of the scoring is to be able to evaluate the progression of the issuer and the way is improving is rating so comparability score for investor because they need to have this comparability by using an international standard which is exactly what we provide them with so the other challenge we are facing is the lack of knowledge of asset manager around impact meaning that even if they have access to our data we are providing them with training on how to use it because it's a complex topics and they need to be trained on that so this is one of the challenge we are facing is that if we want to move to an impact economy we also need to train professional around that and investor the importance of SDG integration is key SDG is a common language for the measure of impact so what we have built is that we are mapping SDG through the issuer activities which is the basis to be able to evaluate the impact of the issuer we are rating a company on a yearly basis using both the financial and extra financial data and we are when there is a controversy during the year which can affect the materiality of the impact we are conducting a new rating of the issuer we have built two types of products one is the SDG mapping of issuer and the second is an impact assessment which is built like financial statements meaning that we are able to quantify both the negative and the positive impact so we have recently conducted an interesting webinar with Augustin Landier and some teacher of Harvard University on the performance of the impact and we have been able to build a case study with a partnership of Natixis which name is in search of impact alpha where we have been able to demonstrate how the performance of the impact is correlated to the financial performance which is really a good news because that means that for whether it is an asset manager or a trader when they invest in an impact company they can ensure that they will have a long term performance because the impact issuer is very resilient we have seen that in the recent crisis the resilience of ESG issuer has been demonstrated so this is something very interesting for banks and also for investors which are very attracted by the themes of the SDG so this is pretty much what we are doing today we are working we have a presence in Europe through our primary office and our headquarters which is in Montreal, Canada which is a perfect place for us to conduct both an expansion in the U.S. and in Europe we have started by Europe because it is the most advanced in terms of regulation but we are seeing things moving fast in the U.S. we are working with for example, Franklin Templeton in the U.S. where we have all their private equity funds which are impact oriented so we are in France where we have rated all their credit portfolio do you have any question thank you very much thanks a lot Natalie I sent on the chat the case study that you mentioned thank you Sebastian can someone confirm that it is there great thank you very much thank you very much Natalie for this very interesting presentation of your activities and I think it relates well to the presentation of Augustin as you mentioned and also to the presentations of the other panelists now I would like to open the floor for questions so if you have questions for Natalie or for the other panelists Vincent Clémence and Guillaume please feel free to step in or to send your question on the chat yeah Sophie yes thank you very much so I have a question for actually a few of you that would be how do you wait the importance of the different items when you are trying to assess impact social governance or even within the items so I will take it so yes what we have is that we have a methodology which is a 60 page document where we can detail all what we are doing and related to the where we are waiting the street topics which is E, S and G so we are mainly putting the same weight on E and S and for G it's a little bit smaller but this is the approach we have taken and we are completely transparent about it on our methodology and where we are waiting the issuer so when the issuer receives the ratings they are able to clearly identify the granularity of the three topics and this is something that can help them to assess their strategy thank you very much Natalie do the asset managers who we have the chance to have here so Guillaume and Clémence do you have an opinion about the ways you weight the different topics in the ESG world do you have an issue with that or do you have anything to comment on Clémence do you want to start yeah okay thank you yes we also have an internal methodology with the proprietary model and we weight the three pillars according to the sector and the specificity of the companies and inside each pillar all criteria are weighted according to the materiality of the criteria and the impact the company can have or on the impact the criteria we assess can have on the company like climate change can have an impact on the company and the company can have an impact on the climate change so the criteria are really weighted according to each sector and inside the sector to the specificity of the companies Guillaume a few comments on my side this is a real question and this is a secret so I won't comment no this is very important and for us it depends on where you are within the investment process when we talk about scoring scoring is some kind of general assessment as I showed you we have not three pillars but four pillars which is something else so just by doing simple math you can see that the importance of the other one are probably lower from our friends the other asset management companies and mainly that's true that when you look at our global assessment of the company we can say that we are short carbon for example the importance of the energy transition and the global assessment is less important than for the people but when it comes to ESG integration when you have to choose to allocate capital it's more linked to what Jessica said depending on the materiality depending on the sector the weights will be different at the investment level so to level for scoring so global assessment of the company we are pretty true about the first approximation and when it comes to investment capital allocation you can focus on one or two dimensions instead of taking the fourth dimension we have Great thank you very much to all of you for these insights Catherine you had a question Yes I wanted to go back to the the engagement and how how fund manager set goals with companies so I heard Vincent saying that for getling the issue was should we be modest but quick or should we be more long term and aim high and I heard Clémence saying that we try to in the short term to improve transparency and I would like to know what are the how do you stand for that do you plan to set quite ambitious goals with companies you're engaged with and if you do do you commit to such goals and performance vis-à-vis your own investors as well I guess it's again a question for our asset managers on the panel and maybe also on the company side to see the experience maybe I go first this time we launch the debate because there is a debate for us engagement is meaningful when you are able to measure it and most of the time this is very difficult so the first thing we try to do is to KPI and this is why I am totally in line with Clémence but we ask first for transparency because this is just a simple way to measure our ambition and what we have observed is when just talking to people and trying to converge on opinions is very difficult so measure is very important and that's why on my side I think that the engagement around climate are meaningful today because you can measure something and probably the other one which is quite where we can be ambitious that way is concerning human rights we do not have a continuous measure of the performance of the company but using controversies and these kind of issues we can have an assessment an objective assessment of where the company is in terms of human rights so here are the two places where for us it's possible to be very ambitious from now for the other dimension as I said biodiversity we have transparency because we are not yet in capacity to measure what companies are doing thank you very much Clemens would you like to add something yes I completely agree when we start an engagement we have very precise goals I think they are all ambitious if we take the time to engage with the company that's because we think there is a point which is important for us but we defined it can be a quantitative goal maybe a decrease in CO2 emissions so it's easy to measure afterwards it can be very factual like the separation of powers and sometimes it's more qualitative on the strategy do you think as a very climate strategy it can be discussed but at least we think we can advance and argument on that so even with qualitative we try to measure it and set the goals and if the goal is not achieved we will take some measures thank you very much I was wondering Natalie do you as was indicated by both Clemens and Guillaume the measurement is important when you do an engagement because you would like to see what was the state of the affairs before and then after the engagement have you been talking with some investors about trying to evaluate specifically their engagement policies so as mentioned we are when we are working with an investor what they are looking for is to have a quantification of the evolution meaning we are looking for a baseline and targets without a baseline and a target we cannot rate properly the issuer so this is pretty much what we are facing today is a challenge to have the disclosure the complete disclosure of this type of information which is the best way to measure the engagement of the issuer so this is where we are today thanks Vincent would you like to react on this question otherwise I will give the floor to Olivier maybe you would just one comment about the baseline I totally agree of course the target how is it possible to assess to compare the baseline between them because sometimes I put the example of water consumption I say ok the group consumes let's say 200 cubic meter water per year ok is it too much is it strong impact small impact you see the point that the baseline is sometimes complicated yes so that's the reason why it's very important to have a sectorial approach to understand what the competitors are doing whether the target adopted is ambitious or not and what are the means that the business model have put in place to reach this target if the target is ambitious but there is no means for sure we will consider that in the rating because we consider that in some way it's been washing so that the reason why we are using sectorial comparative with the same size of each world to assess the reality of the baseline and targets thank you very much Natali for this precision thanks Vincent for your insight Uli even to raise a point thank you yes I have a question on engagement or better two questions on engagement the first one I want to come back to Clemence but you said in the introductory statement that there is both transparency and engagement now the two don't necessarily go together very well sometimes when you have engagement with companies you find that sort of like silent engagement like the discrete approach might be more constructive and I'm thinking the ESG area when it's really about complex decisions so it's like we'll stop trivial what the company has to do but it might not be the best approach to the company and say go in with the GoPro on your head but rather you want to basically have a way to respond and find a solution to get with them so the question is and that's a question both to the asset managers and also to Natali and also to Basso who is on the receiving end so what is your view on that what's the value of being fully transparent that you engage the company what the recommendations are or whether you can also have value in a discrete approach second question is about the interplay with activists and I have in particular in mind activists that are not you know the that are green activists that are coming from the from the content side but maybe hedge funds hedge funds that have sometimes a green agenda that are temporary investors unlike the traditional institutional investors that US asset managers are or others are do you think that in engagement they can play a constructive role or do you think they're more negative again it's a question both to the asset managers and to Basso for the corporate side thanks Uli so maybe let me organize it a bit let's start with the first topic about behind the scene engagements what is your take on that both from the investor and the company side maybe Clemens you would like to start or if you have anything to yeah sure this is a really good question I think we try to start engagement privately and we will be transparent on engagement when it's finished not to like details company to answer to us and if the engagement is not going in a good direction or if we feel that the company is not responsive we might make the engagement public I think we would like to make more public engagement even if there is no problem with the company just to make other investors look at our points and have a debate but we have a lot of compliance issues on that so we prefer to make it private and just publish other results at the end okay Guillaume on the asset management side yeah this is a really good question because there is a question there is a link related to our own investors meaning when we are telling them that we are not only allocate capital but also we are talking to companies we have to prove that we are doing that and on our side we don't want to use this dialogue we we don't want that the fact that the dialogue is public put pressure on the compliance on that side we are maybe not activists because it's very difficult to define the line between activists and people just trying to change a bit the strategy of the company just by looking to them probably part of the line is the fact that those activists are very public on what they are doing but at the end we we are using the same means but so we we prefer to be very transparent on our votes and to be consistent meaning that we are showing that we are able to to put shareholder resolution on one side and we are able to say no or to vote against at the let's say with the proportion which is acceptable let's put it that way this is very difficult to define but that's right that this is not the way we do we are not going to be public when we talk to these companies this is the this has never happened Vincent would you like to react on that? Yes so for me to the question of transparency the answer is definitely yes especially no doubt on baseline where we play and the achievement yearly achievement and I think this is very key to help to give transparency to help understand that everybody especially the shareholders understand the challenge may be an explicit based on scenarios option calculation of cost on the roll I think this is very key to have a robust and insightful dialogue so transparency and baseline and achievement may be a little bit more latitude to the company to the past to get there so I think the corporator is still in a good position to know better what type of levers and drivers to use to get to the past okay great thank you very much Guillaume you wanted to add something yeah maybe for the second question yes yes we can go ahead with the second question I think on the role of the activist both from the point of view of the asset manager and the point of view of the firm if we are not talking about the media strategy just about the capital regulation and what we want to change I think that probably the best way to refer to the presentation meaning what is really your objective function is it a standard objective utility function trying to maximize the final value of your wealth or do you have something else it was not clear for me what was sub-CN the A of the objective function but do you put something else on the table when you try to change or to adapt you discuss on the strategy of the company and this is very difficult to assess because this is very clear what you want to try to optimize your utility function of your final wealth and everyone knows how it works and we had an example recently with Shell with the H plan third point saying that they have to separate their old business with their new business and this is at the investor level that you have to decide if you want to use this old business to finance a new one and this is not the message of this activist this is not at the company level that they have to decide that I think that behind that the purpose is only a monetary purpose I mean but that's true I would put the difference between the two that from a theoretical point of view that you have a utility or an objective function which is not only related to the final value of your wealth I would put it that way I don't know if it's an answer but at least it's a framework okay thank you to stay on the asset management side of the interplay with activists my personal view is that activists can sometimes raise important issues and I was just thinking about environmental issues that are going more level in the HGMs last year and for sure it's specific but if you think about Exxon HGM where activists successfully named two board members with environmental consideration I think that could be seen as a success and it will have an impact on Exxon climate strategy so sometimes it can you know it's not black or white okay thanks Terence any insights Vincenzo you would like to bring I think I agree with you but it's good to have this like counter power or actor to raise issues but I think the key is of course for them to remain consistent on the stage and behind the scenes because we have experienced some very you know greenwashing, speeches and expectation we will ask our corporate to do this and this and at the end we have a face to face with them but okay what is the EVDA this year so I think this is really it has to be consistent and going back to my first messages I think this is interesting when we have a dialogue with everything which is in curve with such type of objectives and achievements if we have in front of this cost or privatequisite to get to them then the dialogue is interesting and it's good and we can accept to have this pressure or request from the funds if everybody is aware of what are the consequences of such choices Yes thank you very much May I ask maybe the final question because now it's almost done but I have final question regarding the the double materiality that Natalie mentioned in her presentation and that was implicitly raised by Vincent the fact that when you make engagement on an environmental or a social issue there is both a financial impact but also the societal impact and what Augustin's presentation was mentioning is that as an investor you might want to be ready to lose a little bit in order to have incentives to lose a little bit in financial terms in order to improve societal goals or societal outcomes to what extent do you feel that this is becoming a little bit acceptable to discuss about this tradeoff between societal impact and financial impacts We say that when you're making a little bit on the financial side it will be on the short term but on the long term you will win a lot so that's maybe what an asset manager which is a long-term investor should think about when doing this but maybe Guillaume you have your audio on that I don't totally agree on that I will go one step further meaning that it's very easy with the issuers on the materially the standard materiality side when there is an impact on financial because this is a standard discussion this is not because it's an extra financial issue that is not assessed with the issuers we start to have issues when it's essentially externalities and sometimes externalities could even not have an impact on the long term I like to talk about the territories for example this is a case for us we cannot say today that working for proximity to pay your tax where you earn money etc this is very important even for the long term return and I think that as a responsible investor sometimes we have to take that cost even if at the end we are not sure that some regulator will put new tax or something which will say at the end that we were right and I think this is we have the opportunity to go one step ahead on that purpose so that's for sure that at the end when there is an impact on financial performance and short and long term and for biodiversity as we know that the states will at the end regulate some stuff or put some taxes even if there is no short term impact we have to start but I would say that if something is very important for you as a company even if it is only a societal impact and not a financial one even on the long term you have to discuss about that subject and this is very difficult the discussion could be very difficult because sometimes you have to you have to go away and no big deal thank you what I will just add is that what we need to clarify is whether or not the fact that there is an impact on the financials is due to an investment which will have a positive impact for the company in the long term so this is also what we are looking for and I think that one case which is emblematic we lost Natalie we lost Natalie okay alright so let's see if Clemence or Vincent you would like to say a concluding word about this issue or do you want to leave it like that I think this would be the need of a dedicated session to see what conditions shareholders are ready to take exactly of a cost or engagement with a long term resource in mind so okay great thank you very much yes you're right sorry Natalie we lost you but first of time I think we are going to close the round table thank you very much to the four of you for your very interesting insights it's always great for us researchers to learn more about what is going on in on the field and also I think we were very lucky to have a very wide panel of practitioners from different all the importance let's say players in the social responsible investment industry both the asset managers the second generation rating and the firms so I thought it was really really useful for us academics thank you very much