 Okay, given that we have limited time, I'm going to get us started. So hello, everyone. Welcome to this SoapGap session on busting myths about the S dimension in ESG, what's needed for broad and impactful integration. My name is Carolina Henrique Schmitz and I'm a director at the Thompson Reuters Foundation. At the Thompson Reuters Foundation, we foster inclusive economies, promote human rights and advance media freedom. In 2020, we brought together civil society experts and the private sector to form an environmental, social and governance working group. With the aim of emphasizing the importance of the social criteria within ESG investing. The group made up of Refinitiv, the International Sustainable Finance Center, Whiting Case, Echo Age, the Mekong Club, the Principles for Responsible Investment, and Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights as Observer, produced a white paper that's titled Amplifying the S in the ESG, Investor Myth Buster, to help further the momentum for both improving and understanding of the S issues within ESG and a wider adoption of social criteria and investment strategies. We're delighted to be continuing the conversation here today. So as we all know, the global pandemic has exposed many shortcomings in our economic and social systems, which has had a profound impact on ESG investing. This is there's now what I call heightened sense of awareness and urgency to combat social inequities and climate change and a growing demand for solutions that have the potential to lead to positive change as we look to rebuild more inclusive, equitable and sustainable economies and societies. Amid the pandemic, the ESG conversation evolved pretty rapidly as investors, companies and the public gave more priority to social, the social element of ESG. We expect that this focus will only intensify and as it has become clear, long term sustainable approach centered around strong environmental, social and governance principles is more important than ever. Yet in the world of ESG investing, the integration of social performance assessment has seen insufficient progress. It is plagued with many challenges and misperceptions about why social indicators, such as companies, labor practices or community relations, what, why they matter and how and whether they can be integrated into investment analysis. Today, I have the pleasure of moderating a discussion with leaders in the human rights and investment spaces to explore these challenges as well as opportunities and resources for investors looking to ensure a broader and impactful adoption of S criteria. I'm joined today by James Andrews, investment manager at CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, Carly and DeBroon, head of the COVID Response Alliance for Social Entrepreneurs at the World Economic Forum, Bennett Finn, principal at Bennett Freeman Associates, LLC, and Michael Schreiber, COO of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights. Conscious of a limited amount of time that we have today, I'm going to jump right in, so we hope to have, so that everybody knows, between five and 10 minutes at the end for questions. So if you have any questions, please submit them through the chat function or the Q&A function, and I'll aim to share them with the speakers as we go, or at the end if we haven't gotten a chance to address them as part of the discussion. So, James, let's start with you. There's a growing acceptance that investors can no longer base their investment decisions on short-term profitability of the companies and their portfolio. They must also consider non-financial factors as ASG criteria. This is increasingly being codified in regulations. To what extent are ASG criteria being embedded in the decisions? Are ASG issues financially material? And if so, why are we seeing less movement around BS? So, that's a deep question. Did we lose James? I think we did. It was a very deep question, I guess. Who wants to take that one? I'm certainly happy to jump in, you know, from the RFK perspective, working with investors and kind of intermediating between asset allocators like pension funds and kind of the investors or the general partners who are making investment decisions. You know, the S has been both trickier, and James is just right back. James, if we're just throwing a little bit of the time, but happy to hand it back to you. So, the S criteria is being embedded in the investment decisions. We are part of the Human Capital Management Coalition, and we focus on how employees are treated and human rights-related issues. We also filed a petition at the SEC to get the SEC to focus more on these particular issues. At CalPERS, we've written to FASB and IESB to get BS embedded in the financials, not only in regulatory reports, as in terms of management commentary or management discussion and analysis, but actually into the financials. I do take some issue with the use of financially material. That is not the legal standard. If we start putting financial in for the material, it actually reduces the ambition, and it's not in line with what is required. For a couple of reasons. It's not correct linguistically, because material already considers financials. If you say financially material, it's financial-financial, which doesn't make sense. The primary cases, TSC versus Northway, basic versus Levinson, the SEC regulation, SX definition O, or the FASB materiality definition in quality control 11, or the IES, or the IFRS definition for materiality does not include financial in front of it. Basically, the people who actually create financial statements, the standard setters, don't use the term financially material. For us, who actually want ESG to start to say financially material, it actually reduces the discussion of what's actually material. We can focus on what's material, and it's pretty basic. It's what investors are actually looking for, what they consider important, and what they will base investment decisions on. It's important to get that particular piece right, and when we do that, we're concerned about the way the economy runs, how people are treated, how our humans are treated, because in the long run, that becomes important. We want employees to be paid a fair wage and given fair benefits, so they can be great consumers to benefit the entire economy. For us, given that we invest in companies and hold for a long time, our expectation is that those companies make a profit and pay us back over a long period of time. They're not doing that if they focus on short-term earnings and short-term profits and not treating employees and the communities around them well. So it is incredibly important. Thank you, James. That's very helpful. I think clarifying that the use of the right terminology and to avoid terminology that sets us back is important. Michael, I'm going to go back to you since you started your thought. Building off of what James has just said, we know that prioritizing the S among ESG remains somewhat limited, and the challenge is, according to some investors, that social issues are less amenable to purely quantitative analysis. How do we move past this challenge? Is standardization of data the answer? Yeah, so I think part of the challenge, even when it happens before, in that we can say S and think we know what we're describing. But that interpretation is very different. There are many organizations that would look at employee and community. There's others who might consider product and what the product does. There's things, does voting rights and your kind of disposition or predisposition on voting rights impact your kind of social outcome as a corporate player? How do your various governmental and policy alignments impact this? And I think because of that uncertainty, even before you get to the weather, each of these things independently is quantifiable and is measurable, there's far more confusion. If you went on the environmental side and said, Exxon runs an amazing employee recycling program, no one would say, well, then they should be an environmentally conscious part of our ESG fund. But if you go on the social front, it's much more confused, right? Almost every kind of public equity-oriented ESG fund owns big positions and some shares of companies that I would say are more questionable in their kind of S across the board, right? Facebook may pay employees well, may create good jobs, but they also have a fundamental threat to the kind of ongoing function of democracy and therefore may not be a clear-cut S. So a long way of saying, I think that the kind of ability to measure, once you know what you're trying to measure, is there. This is not intrinsically more complicated than any of the other measurement hurdles, but I think because you don't know what to measure in the first place and you don't know how to kind of pull these various things. And I think because the kind of alignment of issue is not as intrinsic. Many of the companies that improve their environmental footprint have an alignment, make sure that our kind of use of chlorofluorocarbons in our kind of production process, make sure that our products outcome, make sure that our kind of engagement with supply chain partners, all that kind of aligns. Whereas on the S issue, do we use inputs from prison workforce to maybe entirely different of your gender balance, maybe entirely different from some of the other kind of things that we would broadly consider S. So, you know, as a starting point, I think the conversation around S and recognizing that there's probably not a single all-inclusive measurement, but that maybe some of these kind of broader kind of proxy measures, you know, the degree of inequality, which captures a number of things from workforce to community to society, may start as our kind of process for bundling some of the various metrics. That's great. Thank you, Michael. And Bennett, I see you nodding. I know that when we were discussing the session in advance, you'd mentioned that there's, you'd also been seeing some pushback, even though there's been a greater awareness around the S issues, there's also pushback around ESG given the momentum it has. Do you want to talk to us a little bit about that? Yeah, yeah, sure, thanks. And I'll speak really mostly from my perspective as former Senior Vice President at Calvert Investments. There has been some pushback, I think, from those who despair maybe understandably about the plethora of data, the uneven quality and consistency of the S data, the so-called alphabet soup of different standards and criteria. The good news is, is that there's a shakedown cruise well underway now that over the course of the next several years will rationalize and consolidate the data universe to make it much more accessible and efficient for investors. But there's a couple of other hurdles here that I think are contributing to, if not the backlash, the initial obstacles and picking up on James's opening comments. There's this whole debate and issue around materiality. And different investors, different analysts, different regulators may define materiality somewhat differently. I think that materiality is sometimes too rigid, a straight jacket, and we need to distinguish between what's material and what's salient. Salient meaning important, but not necessarily financially material in the short to medium term. But I think we have to recognize also what is salient today, this year, next year. Not yet material could be material tomorrow, next year, or the next decade. And then picking up on Michael's allusion to Facebook, the whole realm of digital rights is really a perfect example, I think, of the distinction between salient and material and the propensity of issues that have been S issues that have been salient becoming material. When we've looked at the Facebooks and Googles and other tech giants of the world in recent years, we think of these as the ultimate go-go growth stocks that are connecting the planet and enriching investors at the same time. But with Facebook in particular, and I don't mean to single them out critically, but I think they're a good illustrative example, their issues around third party non-state actor manipulation of their platforms, the revelations around Cambridge Analytica, the impacts of manipulation of their platform in the US election in 2016, other elections, what we've learned in recent weeks from the most recent whistleblower. These are issues that have the potential to erode user trust and certainly are accelerating regulation of tech giants in general and Facebook in particular that will have, will have material implications and down the road consequences probably sooner rather than later for investors. So I think we need to think flexibly and not rigidly about this distinction between what's salient and what's material and understand that these are dynamic issues and that the backlash that we may be seeing is kind of a natural reaction to almost any social or economic phenomenon that accelerates in traction and generates a backlash from those who resist. But I do think that the data rationalization and consolidation over the next several years will diminish that backlash and propel the US agenda forward. Thank you, Bennett. To make this also more actionable for our participants, what resources should investors be using to improve their understanding of social performance assessment? Bennett, happy for you to take a first stop at that. Yeah. But invite anybody else to jump in. Yeah, that's a good one. I'll hit that right on the head and I'll just draw here on direct, recent and current experience. So there are all kinds of resources and no doubt my colleagues on the panel will refer to various ESG, the third party ESG data providers their own research resources. But I wanna highlight one particular set of resources that's emerged the last half dozen years that I think is, I know is especially useful for investors to identify and assess salient potentially material risks around S issues, especially human rights. And those are the corporate human rights benchmark initiatives and there are several flagship ones. There's the corporate human rights benchmark initiative I co-founded on behalf of Calvert back in 2013 that's now part of the World Benchmarking Alliance that looks comprehensively at the human rights commitments and performances of companies across sectors with an increasingly large universe of companies and data. Then there are two others that are much more narrowly focused on specific issues, namely know the chain that focuses on forced labor issues as well as modern slavery and human trafficking and there's ranking digital rights which does what it says, ranking digital rights in the tech sector with internet service providers, social media platforms, mobile communications, companies, telcos. So those three in particular, CHRB, Corporate Human Rights Benchmark Initiative know the chain in ranking digital rights. I think or I know are gaining greater awareness and acceptance and implementation on the part of investors who can use them as shortcuts to see through their criteria, through their research analysis and ranking of different companies how range of companies are doing around these issues that really cut across the spectrum of the salient to the potentially or demonstrably material. Thank you, Bennett. And James, Michael, Carolyn, any additional ideas or tools that you would recommend investors use? So I wanna take it a different direction I think because oftentimes when we're talking about the S, we're not talking about aggregating data. We're actually talking about disgusting behavior that is sometimes cultural and we have to change that underlying culture and make certain that those sorts of disgusting behaviors stop and you don't capture it by aggregating data. You don't capture the historical mistreatment of indigenous people such that indigenous people in the US have less rights when a pipeline runs through than someone in a country that actually operates under universal principles. You have environmental racism in the US where you can't stop it because even though you have a higher incidence of cancer, it's essentially higher like a 10X because people aren't catching the same cancers arguably not caused by the petrochemical plants in the area. You're evicting people during the pandemic against a CDC moratorium. Determinate workers during a pandemic even though the company has enough money to keep them employed and weather the storm. And then you blame those very workers for not coming back to work after being terminating. You pay workers $2 an hour and then argue that that's adequate because they get tips. So some of these things, if you're aggregating data, you do not capture the essence of the problem of what's going on in corporate America currently. I mean, what we're asking is to have a culture that you treat people a certain way like humans. Like be mindful of human rights and dignity and basically balance your desire to make an extra five cents a profit with acting in a way that's actually sustainable long-term. Thank you, James. There should be some basics that we can all agree on and the company should live by and operate by. And then interestingly enough, the issue then becomes when you read these companies material, they will basically say they're the greatest thing. They're mindful of the community to operate. They treat the employees the best. But then when you drill down to the practical examples, you see the exact opposite behavior. And how do we help companies do that? What tools are out there? Michael, I see that you were gonna come in there. Yeah, I think this is kind of a bridge between Bennett and James's comments is that I think the resources that Bennett highlighted are great, but I think they are today on a very kind of narrow segment of the kind of global economy because you have all of the kind of private markets and smaller businesses and other things that aren't participating. And I think the data exists, but to James's point, people aren't disclosing or aren't caring about the data in ways that it kind of brings it to the surface. And I think one of the actions that kind of participants can use, there's two kind of broad buckets I would put it into. One is a lot of us interact with entities, whether we own shares in something or whether an investor or whether we're running a company or whether we know people who have, and this could be a one person entity, this could be a small business, it could be something fairly large but not in the public markets. And I think making sure that those questions get highlighted that we don't accept just the kind of generic story of, we're trying to be a community leader or we make support in our network, blah, blah, blah, but really kind of driving to make sure that the data is being captured, that the data is being disclosed, that kind of a real insight that comparative metrics. And so I think you can do a lot of that as a shareholder as owner. And outside of that, there's a role to play in encouraging third-party entities to exist because so much of this data today is self-reported. Of the 1,750 different S metrics out there, somewhere around 93% of them are kind of self-reported metrics that may or may not be verified, validated, may or may not be captured in a way. So these great sites and others that are kind of capturing aggregating, have the garbage-in, garbage-out problem, you may be aggregating a picture that's not fully representative of reality because the quality of the data isn't there. And I think, again, our kind of collective support as a society, our public policy pressure to create both kind of regulatory requirements that drive towards some level of baseline disclosure, but also kind of our supportive organizations that have the capacity to work with entities independently but help guiding, making sure that the data is both captured and then disclosed are helpful in moving us ahead. Thank you, Michael. And building on that point that you're mentioning about how to define the data and what we're talking about, I'd love to turn it over to you, Carly, with your kind of unique vantage point as head of the COVID Response Alliance for Social Entrepreneurs, what do you see? Can you tell us a little bit more about your work and what you see as the role of social enterprises in defining the S and advancing its integration? Thanks, Carly and I, and thanks also to the other panelists for sharing their perspectives on the data that needs to underlie some of these important social topics and challenges and indicators. I guess what we're trying to do with the Alliance, but then also as we're thinking about the World Economic Forum is playing in advancing global standards for what we refer to as stakeholder capitalism. We're really trying to recognize that ultimately underlying these investment decisions are real value chains and real businesses and operations and real communities working in support of the products and services that are being sold, but also ultimately in support of the stakeholders that are part of these value chains. And if there's anything that COVID has shown is the vulnerability of these value chains. So the fact that many of these value chains are global, it's not just many of the perspectives that we're hearing now are also tend to be somewhat US-centric, but these global value chains have been put under significant pressures with human rights challenges, living wage challenges, but even basic health security challenges affecting people on the ground. And what we've seen there is with millions, hundreds of millions people actually slipping into poverty again or being unable to work and show up for work, that the S in investment decisions and in doing good business are essentially fundamental in keeping these value chains operating even in times of crisis. And unfortunately there will be many more crisis to come, be it climate-related, be it migration-related, et cetera. So what we're trying to do with the COVID-19 Alliance, which now is, first of all, is to hopefully increasingly focus on the future, not just on COVID. Right now we are the largest collective of collaborating organizations. So Cap is a member, Thompson Ward is a foundation, is a member of social enterprise focused organizations in the field representing about 100,000 social entrepreneurs globally, and we're really trying to do three things. One is make it matter. One of the things we heard last week kind of when I spoke on a panel with Anshi Gupta, who is the founder of an amazing social enterprise in India is like returning to business as usual is not a reality, at least not in emerging markets. We're very far from that. And so making it matter to be thinking about business in a different way and in that thinking about living wage and security questions is fundamental as we're thinking kind of how we want to move forward. Two is injecting the voices of social entrepreneurs. Many of them have been reinventing business and have been kind of thinking about business models and business dimensions in a context of actually building a more sustainable future. And injecting these voices into the mainstream. So trying to connect the conversation between some of the mainstream between the black folks of this world and the standard centers and the social entrepreneurs who have been thinking about and have been defining social value and with the SKPI's in our frameworks better. They know better, I think what that is, but they also, and I guess that's the third thing that we're trying to do is provide some practical ways in which we can start doing now. We're gonna wait for metrics and standards for us to change our ways. Like we're gonna be losing the battle for this planet, if you will, or the battle for in which we're trying to bring everyone along and give everybody a sustainable future. And so that's where we're working, for example, with Acumen, IKEA social entrepreneurship, SAP, many others within the Alliance to see, for example, how can we bring social entrepreneurs into corporate value chains and supply chains? How can we already begin to roll out larger-skilled initiatives where the social entrepreneurs are helping to lead the way and shape what this new way of doing business looks like, and backed up IDD by initiatives like, for example, the Living Wage Initiative, which is a sustainable trade initiative that's running where large corporations have signed up. So in a way what we're trying to do is make it matter, inject some of these voices into the mainstream and raise the bar with that, but also just try to work in very practical ways to start from the ground up, be changing some of these practices already as we're waiting for standing. That's really great, Caroline. It's wonderful to hear that you're finding ways of giving a voice to those entrepreneurs that are in practice really trying to live by these principles and trying to understand how to embed into their activities more respect and acknowledgement of the yes criteria. You mentioned the WEF's work on stakeholder capitalism. And as I understand it, what WEF is doing, among other things, is promoting alignment among existing ESG frameworks and creating a set of universal disclosures that can be used and then are called something like stakeholder capitalism metrics, I believe. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? Yeah, so it's one of the leading issues within the World Economic Forum. I would also say that I'm not heading up that initiative, right? So my knowledge there also is, I'm not the expert there either, but what we're really trying to do is start with the markets and some of these corporate CEOs, but also with some of the data providers, the MSCI's of this world, for example, to really say kind of there are now a set of standards that everybody can find themselves in, at least some of the leaders can, to really be transforming and what investors are being held accountable for. And so that's been kind of going steadily, that around COP26 there's now kind of a new set of commitments kind of being brought out. And we're also that link between environmental and social justice is also increasingly being made part of the conversation. And I guess all that I say, just also thinking about the community that we have on here in this SOCAP setting, my continued hope is that we can really begin to influence and also start moving the goalpost a little bit on some of these conversations, given that ultimately what that initiative is trying to do is bring everybody along and bring home markets along. And in that you need the pioneers and the front runners. And in a way, like in many ways, I think the people on this, in this community are the front runners that then and on this panel, obviously as well, who can then be defining really kind of what that next practice rather than the current or tomorrow's practice actually should look like. Thank you, Carolyn, that's great. You've touched on an important point of that interconnectivity between environmental and social impact. Can maybe James or Michael speak a little bit to how can we leverage the environmental and climate reporting regime and build on that to create a standard for social reporting? I mean, one kind of alluded to this earlier, but one is trying to come up with some of the kind of macro before you jump down to individual social metrics, something like a framework that measures the degree of inequality and that will have internal and external pieces, but that will capture a number of wage equity that might capture racial and gender biases in the company and a number of other kind of subcategories so that we're not, ultimately, yes, there'll be a lot of attention to individual metrics and those may be different by company, type of company, industry, et cetera, but there would be a common language for at least kind of some of the top level categorization, which will make it a lot easier and I think that's part of what the environmental movement, I mean, again, carbon emissions is only one of many things and you could be a company for which that's not the metric and effluence and river harm is really the primary risk for your company, but we've kind of broadly understood some of these things to capture a wide range of the indicators. So I think that's one of the environmental pieces is what is happening in society as a whole is the metrics and the data analysis is trying to keep up with where people want to be to begin with and so you're looking at investors for a next generation that is making their preference clear. Look where people, how many petroleum engineers are being graduated from universities today versus 20 years ago and you see if a human capital flowing thing, I don't want to end up working in places that have these exploitive or kind of negative S impacts and I want to be pro-social and so human capital is flowing that way, certainly kind of the financial capital that's growth of ESG funds at the kind of retail level is written by that and so I think just like the environmental it's how can we make sure that the data is supportive of what people are trying to do with or without the data and if we can get the data, they will do it much more effectively but right now we have people investing in something because it has the label ESG fund but not necessarily having a firm grasp of whether that ESG fund is really achieving the goals that they have for investing it in the first place and I think the second we can kind of square that circle you'll see a much more efficient outcome generation that people will start kind of bashing what they want to do with kind of the mechanics of how they do it which quite candidly is probably the foot dragging is there are players who know that they will be on that end or that they might be and therefore haven't fully embraced them or I think is a fairly marked shift in the way that investors and kind of the kind of society at all use the kind of corporate outcomes being created. So from my viewpoint, the first thing that we must make certain we do because it appears that that environmental more specific commission will take the lead is that the attitude should be first do no harm and there are numerous cases in which that would be the possibility depending on the approach. And so we are dependent upon those who are focused on the E to make certain that they are as well focused on the S. In some cases they're not only focused on carbon emissions which could protect them on the death of people 4500 years from now unless they're focused on environmental cases and the issues that we can take and I think a larger focus needs to be placed on that. I mean, I think in the overall debate on environmental there's a concept that the just transition it was in the preamble of last cop and a number of people basically start talking about it because it's incredibly important and the just transition has to be built out with a focus on employees and communities surrounding chemical plants and people in the communities that have been impacted by those but many of the payments need to come from the oil and gas companies and not from government. So interestingly enough, if it's the government paying for the just transition it's a further subsidy to oil and gas. So I mean, I think there are a number of issues. I mean, the low hanging fruit I believe is to make certain that through the focus on E you don't overly focus on E and what you can save in the long term and disregard the impact that had all in gas and petrochemicals have on people today. I think in terms of the learning I'm comfortable with saying that they are very, very different. I mean, the ways companies impact people are substantially more numerous than just what you see in the environmental buckets that we're looking at. And I think it's fundamentally cultural. If the leaders of companies basically have virtually no feeling for certain people within their communities if we can't correct that piece we cannot correct the S because when we confront the S it's largely through engagements and it's largely through intensely disgusting behavior. And when I say that most companies are doing the right thing and what we're focused on are the outliers. And so even when we get the data it should look pretty good because most of the companies are doing the right thing. With the S we need to correct the outliers. It's exactly the same with environmental because but you know who the outliers happen to be. Okay, these certain industries they're doing these things so you know who they are. On the S side you don't instantly know who the outliers happen to be because they happen in every industry and it's cultural behavior within the specific companies that need to be corrected. Thank you, James. I think that addresses both your and Michael's interventions. I think address a question that we got from the audience on and I'll read this. I don't get people trying to carve out S and E out as separate agendas. Doesn't that risk completely missing the point that climate change and social inequality are interconnected? And it sounds like you're both saying that that's that's right that we need to be thinking about both as interconnected and address them as interconnected and not think that they can be dealt with separately. That's great. So one other question and I'll see if we have any other questions from the audience but Bennett perhaps for you disclosure on social performance can be intimidating and it can feel to a company like they're putting themselves at risk when they don't have all the answers or they're not sure how much they should or shouldn't disclose and what they are what they are exactly tracking when it comes to the S. How is the increase in legislation or regulation impacting this and the approaches to reporting? This is a very timely question Carolina in that the whatever the uncertainties or anxieties that companies have had around disclosure or lack of clarity that investors have had over the years with disclosure around S will be alleviated pretty fundamentally pretty quickly with the advent of mandatory environmental and human rights human rights to diligence disclosure coming from the EU. There's an initiative well underway the sustainable governance initiative that the EU is approved that will result over the next couple of years 2023 2024 in a comprehensive set of requirements around mandatory environmental human rights to diligence but in the US we've already been dealing with precursors to this for a number of years. I refer to Dodd-Frank sections 1502 and 1504 1502 requiring disclosure by companies of due diligence to identify and curtail any exposure to conflict minerals in the Democratic Republic of Congo 1504 requiring disclosure of revenue payments to governments around the world that are wealthy in oil and gas and minerals but at the same time all too often corrupt. We have the California and those were enacted in 2010 2011 and James lives in the middle of this one being based in Sacramento. We have the California supply chain transparency act that focuses largely on human trafficking modern slavery and forced labor and that in turn inspired the UK modern slavery act of 2014 which has echoes in Australia and legislative regulatory requirements and a number of other jurisdictions. So the point here is that different governmental jurisdictions single country government super national jurisdictions above all the EU are legislating and regulating in this area and that doesn't mean that there's gonna be perfectly consistent comprehensive high quality data soon but it is on the way, it is on the way and I think that we need to see this phenomenon really driving the S and ESG as well as the E and I think playing out in parallel to what I described and others on the panel did as well earlier in the discussion about this whole shakedown cruise because consolidation and rationalization of ESG data. So I think that half a dozen years from now even a little less, we're gonna have a higher quality more consistent universe of S data that will be equally useful not only to companies and investors but also to stakeholders around the world who really care about corporate impact on human rights, labor rights, diversity, inclusion and equity all the whole range of S issues. It's not gonna be perfect. It's not gonna be complete but we're gonna be much further down the road in several years with this big impetus above all from the EU. So I'm not really as hopeful for the US. I mean, basically there's substantial less movement with the US. Just Capital has done what I think is a phenomenal report on the 100 largest companies showing that when you're looking at the metrics fewer than 20% of the largest 100 companies are reporting on any one of 28 particular metrics that they've looked at. Some of them aren't even properly reporting on metrics that are actually in the 10K and most report in sustainability reports. So we have an incredibly long way to go. And even what Bennett is talking about with what's happening in the EU, which is fantastic. I mean, we still have a major problem in the US and it's not likely that we're gonna get legislation soon. And that's with regard to free prior and informed consent when major projects are done through the US. I mean, so basically there are rights, indigenous people have greater rights in other countries than they do in the US. And that is an issue. So... Yeah, 100% agree, James. And I think that was even kind of, and I think Justice made a lot of progress on our index since it launched. But when I first saw it and being from the Netherlands, where everybody has some type of living wage conditions, some of those metrics were actually very basic to me. And that was common, that was kind of the lowest bar in a way that they were setting, whereas really at that point already it was clear with the 2030 goals, the bar had to be much higher. So I think the whole idea of just on the one hand, recognizing the local context in as we're setting these standards. And on the one hand also taking advantage of the local knowledge and insights that are sometimes not, or it not captures through some of the more FOGO reporting metrics. It's just so fundamental. And so that's also why we're really trying to make sure and initiatives like the World Benchmark Alliance that Bennett referenced are so important there also to be doing kind of all that local stakeholder engagement and ensuring the local voices are being part, made part of management and impacts management in all of this, but alongside also that some of these data solutions and it was referred to on chat also and new technologies that can then also be used to be updating our standards are so fundamental because ultimately also just on that last point and again also within the forum we're working with initiative on faceability is some of these data solutions and data platforms are so critical because we can set standards if the basic raw data is not there or if the quality of the data is not there. So localizing data infrastructures and voices in all of this and making sure that we're not just gravitating towards the lowest denominator of performance especially with the as I'd say is from this is critical. And I think that protect piece is available in the ads have some challenges but we can keep it real like it's sort of hard and it is regardless of where there's been predicted but we start to talk about it in a ways you know it doesn't matter whether you're here in the United States or whether you're in the top of New Guinea and you know could really be to do a lot of things in actual different and also a world where I think you may be cutting in and out is that just me? Let's try that again. So if you don't mind repeating that those last three, five seconds. Sorry, we couldn't hear the your last thoughts. I'm sure they were great but ending on that important note of the data sets and then we're going to move on and we're going to move on to the next slide and then we're going to move on to the next slide and then we're going to move on to the next slide and the data sets and the data tools that are being developed. I'm going to wrap us up since we're now at time but let me just take a moment to thank our wonderful panelists, Caroline, Bennett, James, Michael for this thoughtful and engaging discussion. I know that we could spend many hours more discussing all of these aspects and addressing all of the questions that might emerge from the audience and thank you to everybody that participated today for joining us and sharing your questions. For those that might be interested we're hosting a training next week on legal development in Social Enterprise ESG and Impact Investing. And we'll share more information in the chat function and encourage you to sign up and don't hesitate to reach out to any of us if you have any questions or want to explore further collaborations. So thank you everybody and have a great rest of the day.