 Good morning everybody and welcome to a panel entitled ESG Metrics for a Sustainable Future. It could be subtitled how auditors and accountants suddenly became wildly trendy and jumped into the climate change debate big time. Because what is becoming clear is that as the world looks to scurry to create ways to create a more sustainable future, the role of measurement, the role of tracking what companies are doing, the question of what kind of metrics investors are using is becoming incredibly important. And over the last year, there has been a tremendous amount of activity in this space, whether it's a type of reforms introduced by the European Union in relation to the green taxonomy, or whether it's a flurry of measures that came out of the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow with all these acronyms like G-Bands, ISB, etc, etc. And in fact, the World Economic Forum has also been pushing ahead rapidly on this front. In fact, this time last year, I was chatting with Brian Moynihan, one of the key protagonists in this initiative about what the web is doing in this respect and attempt to try bring this alphabet soup of different acronyms together. But what we're going to be talking about today is what is actually happening on the ground, how anybody can make sense of this very, very confusing alphabet soup. And most importantly, whether the scale of change is fast enough to avert a climate disaster, social upheaval, and all the other problems that we're grappling with. And we have a terrific panel to talk about this. We've got on the one hand Brian Moynihan, who's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer of Bank of America and Head of the Economic, World Economic Forum's International Business Council that's been trying to push ahead with some type of consolidation of these accounting standards. We have Julie Sweet, who's the Chair and Chief Executive Officer of Accenture, and also a member of the Warden Trustees of the World Economic Forum. And then we have two private sector company representatives from the corporate world, the real world, Franz Van Houten, CEO of Royal Philips, and also Alain Bejani, who's CEO of Magine Alpha Tuim from the UAE. So a diverse group of perspectives that's going to be trying to make sense of what this all means on the ground, or in practice, or in boardrooms. So I'd like to start with you, Brian, and ask you, this time last year, you were explaining how the big four accountancy groups and the World Economic Forum were trying to pull together this really confusing mix of accounting standards that were emerging. What we were hearing at the Financial Times, both in our day-to-day reporting, but also on the moral money platform that's focused on ESG issues, what we were hearing from investors was that most of them simply could not make sense of what was going on in practical terms. So can you give us a very quick snapshot of what exactly is happening on the metrics funds right now, and whether it's any less confusing than it was this time last year? Well, I think, thank you, Joanne. I think if you think, since last year we talked, just to start, we have to go back to what are the metrics? The metrics were designed in an effort by the International Business Council with the big four accounting firms, with the World Economic Forum team to basically take a look across all the metrics that existed out there, consolidate them into a platform, which importantly aligned to two basic things. One was to the Sustainable Development Goals, which is what the world wants development to be like. And then secondly, frankly, to define and measure what stakeholder capitalism is because the debate had begun. Well, you all talk about it, but how do we know you're doing it? And the answer was here's a set of metrics. And then they have those go across industry and across types of people, investors, operators, et cetera. So since that time, I think last year we probably had 30, 40 companies in. Now we have 140 plus companies who are committed in reporting on these metrics. And France and Julie and myself, we all have them in our annual reports and our reports that are official sector. And that's across the country, across the world, all different types of companies, all different industries reporting, which is important. It's two other major pillars that have taken place over the last year, where part of this process was not only with the companies and what I cannot inform, but beyond, was to educate much broader. And so with the big four accounting firms who've been terrific at this with various bodies, we've talked to thousands and thousands and thousands of directors of companies that are not quite as big as the companies that are in the IBC, talk to them about how you can adopt them, how to think about that and what it would take. So that's been going on. And then the other thing that's been going on, frankly, is the convergence. And there's two parts of convergence. There's a formal convergence that resulted in ultimately the ISSB being formed, which the ISRA community, represented by us, the new things have been pushing to get done so we could get to a formal set of standard metrics. And then there's a lot of work that went on with our colleagues in GRI and SASB and others on informal conversions, which was the standard setters were created by interested people and have a great history and have done a lot of great things, bringing them together as they realized the multiplicity was making it difficult. Those convergences have taken place, the ISSB being the sort of receiving big catcher's mitt for all that coming into them and we'll announce it. And then even formally on the U.S. side, you're seeing the SEC promulgate, potentially promulgate in the relatively near future, a rule on environmental disclosure and probably one on human capital disclosure, and that's two of the four pillars that are embedded in the SDG-based IBC metrics. So we are actively engaged with, you know, business roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce and all the people talking about this on all and equivalents across the world. But the idea, as you get these things standardized, then investors won't be confused, then society won't be confused, then people will be able to be held accountable in a consistent fashion, and that's the goal we have. Well, many years ago when I was a reporter writing about the world of credit derivatives, I used to joke to my colleagues that I couldn't imagine a sector which had more acronyms than credit derivatives. And now I've discovered there is one, it's called the world of ESG and sustainability, which is just drowning in all these acronyms. But I'd like to ask you, Julie, you're paid to reassure companies about what's happening and to help them make sense of complexity. Do the companies that you speak to understand what this confusing sort of blitz of acronyms actually mean, and are they managing to turn it into tangible action steps to try and conform with them? Great question, Jillian. And really building off where you started is to sort of the discussions we've been having at the World Economic Forum, the work that Brian and the IBC has done, is there's a parallel sort of underlying momentum that's been built by the shift in thinking about sustainability by companies as compliance, then it was corporate responsibility. We all remember being at the World Economic Forum talking about this is the right thing to do, and now it's competitiveness. And it is competitiveness from an investor perspective, a customer perspective, and a talent perspective. And that has really given momentum to companies embracing sustainability from reporting and the work that has now been done to make that easier. But as important is embedding it in actual business strategies. And you see that across industry. In beauty, you've got Shiseido talking about sustainability at the center of their skincare. You've got in retail a Best Buy who's announcing not only creating jobs, but commitments to diversity. You have a number of financial services companies who are building out their own platforms to both look at investing, scope three emissions on the climate side, but how they're operating. And so the shift in the momentum around the metrics and understanding the metrics starts with the shift in the business environment. And what I would say is that the work to make it more easy and understanding is important, but it really just starts with commitment that you're going to measure it and use the data. And we're actually releasing a study today that says that only about 26% of companies actually have the full set of data that they're measuring. Now the good news is, and all of us on this panel are great examples of that, that this is not rocket science. It's a decision to measure and then to take the steps. And so we just had our fiscal year end and we launched that we now report against every single one of the different frameworks publicly. And I think that's important that we all take that step and you see that momentum, but I think it's tied to competitiveness. And I'll just end with a few changes because I think we're a good proxy for what we're seeing companies do. And when we announced our results this year, we said we're measuring our success by our broad sustained, the way we create 360 degree value, which is what we call sustainability. So I started my earnings script with how where we are in meeting our diversity goals, where we are with meeting our climate goals, how we've upskilled our people, then I turned to the financials. I have my top 500 leaders are measured by not only financials, but how we're meeting all of those goals, sustainability at large. And then our investment priorities reflect investing in this on behalf of our clients, whether it's building algorithms to see child labor and supply chains or to measure the reduction of carbon emissions. And it's that shift that's as important as seeing the reporting that's table stakes. It's the shift in really embedding sustainability in your core business strategy and in how you measure your performance. Right. I mean, I take your point about the fact it's really about a shift in mentality as much as the actual numbers. And that's obviously very striking. But before I turn to France now, I'd like to ask both Brian and Julie this, you know, obviously this all sounds very sensible. Obviously, everyone's racing. And at COP26, there was this really quite remarkable announcement from the IFRS that what you call the IISB Brian, I call the ISB because easy to pronounce this new accounting framework to try and get companies to report on their environmental emissions with a kind of scope three mentality that is supposedly coming down the tracks within a couple of years. And for the first time in history, the IFRS is not only trying to change the reporting system is trying to change the audit system as well in just a year or two. Nothing on this scale and speed has been seen before in accounting history. You know, accountants are not known for their propensity to race anywhere. So I'm really curious, Julie or Brian, is this remotely practical as far as the ambitions that are laid out? And can companies actually make sense? Can the C-suite actually make sense and conform to this fast enough? Maybe, Julie, you can come in first and then give Brian time to think about it. Well, Brian's the expert on the accounting industry. I'm happy to say because of the amazing work that he's done in really helping converge. And then I would say in terms of the C-suite, this is about a decision. Again, this is not rocket science. For us, it took us 15 months to go from where we were doing three frameworks to all six to get all the level of assurance and data. And we did that now. And we're doing it against, we're reporting against six frameworks. We have great support from our accountants. We have great methodology because a lot of this is non-financial data. So this is absolutely doable and it starts with the decision and your seeing companies make that decision. But Brian, over to you. Yeah, Brian, can it work? By the way, I should say the reason I say the ISB, not the ISB is because it's easy to pronounce. And because it was created by the G-fans, the financial body, I like the idea of the G-fans meeting the ISB, which sounds like two Korean boy bands. But Brian. I'll leave that to you. The need to make part of the official sector is the only way to actually stop the proliferation because there's nothing that stops another one from developing, another one from developing, another one from developing. And so that's why, frankly, the biggest obvious isn't the pace at which we're going to move. The biggest obvious is the issue in the community is saying, please do this. Please put a set of rules that we can actually understand and live by because in absence of that, there's self-appointed authorities that just keep developing and everyone has the same right as the one before and if they can get the momentum behind them. So the idea of doing that, now, will they move as fast as they say, we don't know, but they're just announcing that they're going to try, actually causes people to focus on that in you. The GRI and SASB, which have done a wonderful job over the years, of getting this done. But remember, going to Julie's point, GRI, SASB, TSCD, PCAF, I can go on and on. This is what we report on today and what we're trying to do is consolidate that to make it simpler because if you go look in our end report on pages 44 to 47 or whatever it is, there are the metrics that align to the SDGs and likewise Julie Frantz and Allen would say the same thing. And so we can do this, but having an endorser is the way to do it then just like accounting and just like all their things makes it easier. And then frankly, the energy which goes into the multiplicity of reporting and the difficulty getting it all straight can be turned to actually doing things that will make these things move in the right direction. And that's what we've got to remember is we can't debate how to measure anymore. We got to go out and make a step tomorrow and a step the next day and step the next day towards environmental change, a step tomorrow in terms of human capital metrics and diverse disclosure. And that's what's going on. So it's terrific they're doing it. The U.S. will come out differently because the ESCC will lead it, but the ESCC is a disclosure organization. Ultimately, FASB will have to settle in here at some point and make a decision whether they're going to pursue this and then likewise other accounting bodies across the other parts of the world. But if it doesn't move to the accounting into the official sector on that side, then you're still subject to basically a broad disclosure mandate in the ESCC, whereas accounting says this is a way to count one and one equals two. And that can help standardize the practice. Right. Well, I'm going to come back later on and ask you about the ESCC in a moment. But before I do, I want to ask you, friends, from the perspective of Phillips, how doable is this settle or are these set of reforms? I would say very doable. And let's for the sake of the audience say Phillips is a health technology company, about 20 billion in revenue size. We have already implemented the IBC set of standards for ESG reporting. As a company, we believe this is very important. I mean, if you zoom out for a moment and say, the world has a lot of big challenges, whether social equity or sustainability and climate or companies have a role to play in it. That's why we talk about a state called the capitalism. But there's also a big trust deficit. And the only way to tackle both the big challenges and create a level of trust is transparency on what we are doing. So we were immediately leaning in to say, we want to publish all these ESG metrics. And we have in our 2020 report published 21 of them. Now, I agree with Julie that it's all about doing, right? And the great benefit of implementing a set of metrics is that you can deploy it through your entire organization. So all our leaders allow people are familiar about their task to achieve our ESG metrics, whether that's on climate or on diversity, or on lives improved with our technology or access to healthcare. And it puts all the noses in the same direction. And then we have year on year improvement objectives. And compensation is tied to it. So we have already moved beyond only measuring and rewarding on financial metrics. And we have embraced this wider set of metrics. I see it as a learning curve for society. We have early adopters like our companies that are fully in. And the benefit of getting the standards bodies now to say, here is a common set of metrics will force the laggards to adopt as well. And as Julie said, it takes you one or two years to get a metric fully embedded in your operation. It's not that difficult. So I would like to exude confidence that this is eminently doable. We just need to get on the bandwagon on the learning curve so that you make progress. And there's no time to lose because if you think about the whole climate debate, then we're going way too slow to get to carbon neutrality. We have become carbon neutral in five years just because we measured it and we helped our people accountable. So that is how you get progress. And I'm curious before I turn to Alan, can you find the people, the talent you need to actually do this? I mean, because I'm hearing there's a real shortage of green auditors out there or people who are actually trained in these different disciplines that can bring them together. Well, I mean, the first you need to have the data yourself as a company, right? And that is in your own hands. And that's not so difficult. We have been able to collate and collect the data globally. We are in 150 countries. We have standardized the measurement across the entire Philips universe. Our external accountant provides assurance on these numbers. There are controls in place that we offer so that the assurance review is easier for the accountant. We have been getting assurance already for over five years. So again, we should not over complicate this topic. I think it's quite doable and setting standards like IBC and now the big four and then IFRS are doing or ISP is exactly the way to go. Right, right. Well, I'd like to turn to you, Alan, because it's great to have you on this group because so much of the debate initially was dominated by European companies, latterly American companies, but really has been in European companies and American companies that really dominated discussions around these accounting standards. So I'm very curious for a group like Majid Al-Fatim, which is one of the largest holding companies in the UAE. How does this play out in practice? How easy is it to actually implement these new metrics? And does it worry you that many of your counterparts, your rivals, your competitors in the region may not be going down the same path at quite the same speed? Well, the short answer is no. It doesn't worry me. I really hope that they actually follow suit and a lot of what we do, whether it's in the context of our region presence in the MENA-wide region or what we do in the context of the IBC and WEF, is really to actually present an alternative of how actually things can be done for a private sector company in this region where we can contribute. Because the reality is we live in emerging markets and in a region that has a lot of endowment from nature. And we are big contributors to actually the problem that exists. As Fran said, it's really about there is the issue of measuring, but there is actually the issue of doing, which is what really matters is the impact that we drive. And of course, it's important that we measure it, but what the impact that we actually drive. So what we have been doing as Majid Al-Fatim one, we've been on this journey for 10 years. So we've been reporting, so declaring, reporting and externally audited on this for more than 10 years now. So before the issue of which frameworks are we going to use and before ESG at the time of compliance and CSR and then move into where we are currently. So that's one. Definitely, there is a big need to to unify and converge everything in one place. As Majid Al-Fatim in the Middle East and in the UAE, all of our colleagues in the region need for sustainable growth to actually tap the markets, whether it's public debt or whether it's actually equities. So we have public debt and we have shown the world that actually there is a huge demand when it gets to actually sustainability link loans, when it's actually green bonds or green Islamic bonds, Sukuk, et cetera, et cetera, because we've issued the benchmarks on green Sukuk, for example, in 2019, et cetera. So the need exists. Everyone is in a special interest on the short term because of their funding capacity, because of their investors, because of broadening their investor base to do it. But you also need to do it because there is an imperative, which is basically how much we are using, I would say, just to put it simply, like Al Gore does, using the I would say the air as an open sewer. And this is why a company like us have pledged to be net positive by 2030 on water and carbon. In addition, of course, to all what we're doing to measuring all of that and how are we getting to actually there by then. So it is possible, it's not difficult. We have one of the largest indoor ski slopes in the world, Skidubai. And actually, people think that it's a huge generator of actually pollution. In reality, this is elite certified building. And actually, it consumes very little to almost nothing compared to anything of its size. So it is possible technically, practically on the ground. It is possible to measure it. It is possible to drive to drive the cultural transformation organizations in terms of driving ownership and giving people tools to do it. And it is possible to transparently report into it. And I want to say, just to emphasize the work that we're doing in the context of the IBC, the importance and the CEO for climate, the leaders for climate change, the importance of actually disclosing not just what you're doing, but actually what you're promising to do. We have to be transparent on the full spectrum. We cannot just choose to be transparent on one end and not the other. Right. Well, I mean, a lot of green activists would pay. Sorry. Yeah, just to be broad about something here, we're getting so caught up in the technicalities of the alphabet soup and the measurement. Remember what's really going on here is aligning in Duly in France. Now, and the point in our play is to line the whole company against a task as opposed to charity, as opposed to CSR, as opposed to that thing. That then changes the amount of money that comes to any of these elements. Right. And so when people say there's not enough money to do the environmental transition, people are thinking that is discrete pieces that they've heard given by charities, which are wonderful or given by, which is not close to what we need. What we need is the entire alignment of companies towards achieving that goal, how they consume, how they make their products, how their supply chain works. When you do that, you go from our charity of years, $500 million, which is fantastic, our operating expense base is $60 billion. If you align that $60 billion, that's a lot more money you're causing activity. In France and Duly and Allen have the same thing. And so that distinction and that alignment is what brings trillions to the task in a given year. Right. That's about the same thing. Instead of having an ESG fund, which is interesting, by using a common set of metrics, they can align all their investments. So you go away from $25, $30 billion we've raised in ESG funds and the Merrill platform and the private bank platform, which is terrific, to $3.8 trillion a lot. And that difference people miss when they get caught up in accounting is what we're doing is aligning the entire of capitalism towards the tasks that people want capitalism to do. So it's really about a shift in mentality as much as anything else and making sure it's no longer just ring banks in a separate department, but at the core of the operations. Well, that's the I could give an example to that Gillian, perhaps I think it speaks to the imagination. So after, let's say we became carbon neutral in our operation, we said now we need to address the so-called scope three of CO2 emissions, which brings you to your supply chain and also to the products that your customers use. And we have chosen to adopt the concept of circular economy in our business model, which basically means that we will take back the products that we sell, recuperate the materials and or repurpose the products and give them another life to back away from using virgin materials, which are bad for, let's say the scarce resources of earth. And you don't want that to end up in landfill for the oceans. The adoption of circular economy was not easy. And by now we are approaching 15% of revenue and we are making progress every year. But it is an integral part of our business model. And actually it doesn't raise cost and it doesn't reduce profitability. And it actually improves the retention of our customer base. Customers want to be part of it. And the loyalty of our customer base has gone up as a consequence. So if you fully embedded into your operation, this is not a obligation or like CSR was, but it's a fundamental different way of running your end to end supply chain. Right. Well, that's fascinating. I think we've been bombarded with questions from the audience watching. I mean, really a lot of very detailed questions, a lot of pretty geeky questions. Clearly a lot of people watching this, a lot of the West community really care about this or else they are grappling for some clarity with the confusion. But let me start with one quick question, which is at the moment, almost all the focus has been on publicly listed companies. There's been less way to implement this in private companies. I'd like to ask you, Alain, whether that worries you because you are operating in a region where there are obviously a number of big privately held entities that are not subject to the same pressures as publicly listed companies. Yes, absolutely. I think there is a big, I would say emphasis on publicly publicly traded companies and where actually most of the money is and naturally people, I would say, rely on the quantum. So this is where most of the money is and naturally the impact is driven by that, which is true. But at the end of the polluter is a polluter, whether you are privately owned or publicly owned, you are a polluter. And if you're not actually part of the solution, you're part of the problem. And privately owned businesses have less pressure, I would say, to move in that direction other than their own conscience and because it's their own money, which is true. But at the end of the day, the impact on the planet is the same if not bigger compared to others. And I think that there are two things. One is an awareness issue of the importance of this matter and why it's important. It's not an issue of being able to sustainably fund yourself, whether it's this way or that way on equity markets, but also on the other side. This part of the world, especially emerging markets in general, if we want to really grow sustainably, we need to get more sustainable sources of funding. And naturally, sooner rather than later, we're going to have to tap into the global community and these companies have part of their own sustainability to actually ready themselves from an ASG standpoint and really report on them so they actually improve their transparency. I think when you look at the privately owned business, I would say, verse, you would see that there is a large part, especially in the past few years of maturity that's happening in terms of best practices and making sure that they're all moving towards transparency. I think some, like Majid Al-Futayim and others who are doing that have an important role to play in actually showing others that it's possible. It's not that actually you actually make more money, you don't lose money, you do the right thing, and your business is more sustainable. So your bottom line as well, because unfortunately for some, it may override some other consideration, would, will suffer from that rather sooner, I mean sooner rather than later and there is a possibility to do it. So I really want on this one to thank the work that, I mean, what we do in the context of the WEF and the IBC because it shows other privately owned companies that this is possible and actually it is something that does not threaten neither the privacy that they want to have around their business, nor the actual performance of their business, but it gives them more sustainability on the medium to long term. Right. Well, we've got a question from the audience that's been actually very popular with the people watching this, which is this. Corporate ESG reporting is a first step, but getting carbon footprints on the products, consumer products, is what's going to really change, behavioral change. Do you think that's fair that what you guys are doing is just the first step at best? And in fact, the real issue at stake is not getting investors to understand what's going on, but to get consumers to understand what's going on with some kind of metrics for them. Julie, do you sort of work, you know, you're looking at this all front? Yes. So maybe just to start, you know, it's exact, it's a great question. And it's also really at the heart of the question is, where else do we need to make sure we've got consistency as well as standards and transparency. And there's a large group of consumer goods companies that are now working together. Some of that work actually started at the World Economic Forum among the industry workers, because what we know is consumers really care about sustainability and particularly the carbon footprint. And yet they're confused because there aren't common standards. And so that work we did, we helped the WEF do with a number of companies. And now there's a group that's publicly coming together to do that. And these are competitors are coming together and say, this is the right answer to get the standards. You also see in other places like the circular economy, you just heard Franz talk about how important that is and how an important piece of his business strategy is and their standards that we need to measure. What does that mean? And, you know, who's really delivering on the circular economy? And so I think it goes back to measuring performance and having this be at the heart of your business strategy. And in order to be the heart of your business strategy, you have to understand what do your customers need? You have to be able to measure to know what to measure. And I think it's very important that this is about competitiveness. And the reason the private companies are going to come along is because this is how they're going to win. And everything that we've seen the research we've done says that the trillion dollar question is, how do you operate sustainably and make money? And those companies who have embraced sustainability are more profitable. They have a higher total return to shareholders. And so measuring just like you do every other business strategy is critical and seeing this for what it is, it is the right thing to do. It is critical for the future. And it is how you're going to win in the market. The early adopters of the consumers, they are involved and they care. They are interested in sustainability. The fast part of the market and the consumers are not aware and not so involved and they buy on price. And eventually, once we have transparency on ESG and metrics, there needs to be a cost to not being sustainable. A cost to being wasteful, a cost to carbon emissions, carbon priced pricing should then make their way into the cost prices of the products. And that will, I think, help then the consumers who are less involved around making the right choices. You could apply that to electronics, but you can certainly also apply it to food and meat and other highly wasteful areas. So I think there's a lot of education to be done. But aligning on metrics is the start because that creates a measurement and an opportunity to encourage, but also penalize by putting a cost to the waste. So way to go. Just to give you a thought on this. Last time the Weff met in person, we launched Prince Charles, launched the Sustainable Marks, and I've been the co-chair of that. Interestingly enough, we have the fashion industry group on that. And so they've developed labeling which allows you to see the providence of a good and will allow it to be transferred over time and this providence maintained. So think of this QR code. We can instantaneously see the sustainability all the way back to the point of cotton being grown or the wool being grown at shorn and et cetera. And then that enables us to have a problem. So that industry is taking on its waste by thinking through where the goods come from to make it. They're also thinking through the resale market, its fashion industry working with the resale market, thinking about how you sustain brand across time and think about that. And on top of that, the repair market, which is the reality is if you can really understand that that was a 2016 wool scarf that needs to be repaired, they can do it faster and therefore at less cost and therefore enable the circular part, the fronds going that that scarf then lasted a few more years. So those great companies are doing it in that area. In the plastics area, the same type of thing, which is ultimately trying to do the recycling and everything else, but also labeling the context and type of plastic and even the great companies that produce the goods that go into plastic, trying to change how they actually constitute it. These are amazing things going on, but they do come back to this idea of the disclosure by the operating companies that work into the supply chain to get those supply chains to change, whether private or public frankly. And then also their awareness that the consumer brand is being built or not built, ultimately, if the end consumer on these factors in it, probably the most stark example, that's electric vehicle market. Think about the difference evaluations of companies and the impact on companies as they made decisions to push. That is a consumer driven idea that there's people that want more demand for that thing. So I think the consumers are driving this, whether it's specifically disclosed in content of 0.7% X or not, they're driving the activity in the big companies recognize that the brands recognize that the suppliers recognize that and that's why it's moving that pace. Right, we've got several questions to go back to the issue about the ESG metrics and the companies. Several questions on raising the issue of whether the ISSP or ISP standards are applying an EU center plans that's going to be punitive in the short term for emerging market economies. Ella, I'm curious about to hear from you. Do you think the way these metrics are being created essentially penalizes emerging market companies? It does at times, but at the end of the day, we've had that with the debate on GDPR, and it was a very, very sensitive conversation across the globe. But at the end of the day, going always with the most, I would say, restrictive approach is the best thing to do because it's a matter of you getting ready, getting prepared to it, because ultimately, the world is going to converge on the ones that make most sense. And usually, the one that makes more sense in a world where the consumer are so empowered. And in a world of instantaneity is naturally the ones that are the most restrictive. So, we don't look at it from our standpoint of this being territorial driven. We look at it from this being really common sense driven and how much of it makes sense or not. But then the readiness is the issue. Like the question before on the issue of traceability and being able to really tell the customer how much it has cost from a carbon impact to get to point A to point B. The real issue is an issue of being able to use blockchain and modern technology in order to really have proper traceability and then measure the impact of that in a way that actually means the same thing for everyone, which is something, for example, that you're doing with IBM, but we need to integrate the whole very fragmented supply chain. And this is in the context of consumer good or consumer retailing and consumer goods industry, but you have it also in other industries. Now, moving into what you were talking about, it's not so much outside the framework. It's actually the implementation that's needed. What do you need to be able to implement the framework that actually makes sense when you operate in an environment that is not as mature as other environments? This is, to a large extent, an issue that's not really tackled. And it's not coming from, I would say, the fact that people don't see it. It's coming from the fact that there is no real engagement with the emerging markets on these issues. It is sometimes developed. It makes sense, but it makes sense within the confines of four walls, but it's not that there is no real engagement into the conversation, simply because the representation of, I would say, the developed market is higher. They have a higher share of voice and they have a higher, simply higher presence. And people just speak among those who are around them. Right. Jillian, can I add one thing here? It's important to remember that these are global companies who are leading, who are operating in emerging markets. And so you take the consumer goods companies that I mentioned earlier that are leading, L'Oreal, P&G, Unilever, the ones that are coming together around standards, they're operating in the emerging markets. They have to be able to deliver on their commitments in the emerging markets. And so I think we have an opportunity here. And I think, Alana, that's where you were going with, yes, we learned some things in GDPR. And at the same time, sustainability is a reality. And it's important to consumers around the world, to economies around the world. And you have a lot of companies who have their future based in the emerging markets, who are standing up and saying, we are going to deliver there, as well as in the countries where it's easier because of the technology and the regulation and so on. And I think it's important to make sure that we're baselining the commitments here are not just European and US-focused market companies. That's a very, very good point. We're almost out of time. Just quickly, I agree with Julie. I think it makes a lot of sense and it helps others to actually learn from. But I just want to say that I think it's about 60% of the output in terms of retailing that happens in the emerging markets actually is locally produced, not by the big, I would say, organizations. It makes a lot of sense because the small one learned from them. But that is this gap, this delay in time that we have to bridge. That's a great point. We're almost out of time. I just want to quickly pick up one of the questions we're getting asked a lot of, which is about regulatory convergence. Brian, do you think the SEC is going to adopt the IFRS, is the framework? I think they have a different charter. And that has to be understood is that IFRS is an accounting group that's developing sustainability standards, the SEC's disclosure charter. And they are going to promulgate rules. The chair has been clear on the environment, the disclosure rules and environment, and disclosure rules on human capital to standardize that disclosure. But in order to get the same impact to the US, you'd actually have to get FASV to actually operate and develop it. Likewise, the value of getting through the official accounting thing is applies to all companies, really to Alan's point, because nobody can hide from an accounting standard because it applies to everybody's audit financials. And so that's the difference. And so, yes, the SEC will come in, but ultimately there has to be an equivalent act off the backs of the FASV or something similar. Right. Well, if the SEC is going to come out with the reports quite soon, it's certainly going to be interesting to look at. Sadly, very sadly, given how many questions we have from the audience on this, we are out of time. I think that given the audience's demand, we could easily go on for another hour, but we are sadly cannot. From my perspective, as someone who's tracking this at the Financial Times and at the Financial Times, this moral money platform, I'd say that there's really three or four key conclusions. One, there is a frenzy of activity happening around this space right now. Two, much of it is still pretty confusing to anyone who's not at the very center of these debates because of this alphabet soup. But some sense of consolidation may now be emerging slowly. Three, the perhaps the most interesting thing about this whole great frenzy of discussion is not, as you say, the acronyms, the fact that it is potentially leading to a bigger mindset shift as companies not only take on board issues that they've ignored in the past with sustainability, but are forced to go from a kind of tunnel vision perspective, looking just at shareholders to a lateral vision perspective, looking at their wider footprint in the world. And fourth, if any of you've got kids who want job security in the future, I think training as a green auditor right now is going to be one surefire bet, but there's certainly is going to be a lot of demand for people who can make sense of this. We're trying to do that at the Financial Times. I'm sure most of you are trying to do it in everyday jobs, but it's still not easy at all. So best of luck in forging a path in this very fast-changing landscape. And I look forward to next year's Wealth Event, where hopefully it will become even clearer and more clearly embedded. So thank you all very much indeed.