 Good morning, good afternoon. Dear participants, for 50 years the World Economic Forum has been the flag barrier for stakeholder responsibility. Today is a milestone in implementing the stakeholder principle into the management of companies. The measuring stakeholder capitalism report that has just been released by the Forum's International Business Council suggests practical metrics that companies can measure and report on. This will allow executives, investors, employees and other stakeholders to see how the company performs on metals that reflect society as a whole, such as climate change and biodiversity, workplace diversity and inclusion, and good governance. And as a consequence, they will herald a sea change in the way companies are run and evaluated. We are very proud of these steps. We are proud that business leaders, such as the ones present here today, have taken the lead in giving meaning to stakeholder capitalism. With these metrics, the business world will finally be able to walk the talk on their commitment to ESG performance and the stakeholder principle. I look forward to the discussions that will follow now. And I want to thank Brian Morinian, who led this IBC initiative, as well as our partners from the four largest audit firms, Carmen Decibio, Bob Moritz, Pundit Rennian and Bill Thomas. And of course, Chilean Ted of the FT for being present here today. Good morning, everyone. Or as Professor Schwab just said, good afternoon, good evening, depending from wherever in the world you're watching. We're delighted you joined us. My name is Chilean Ted. I'm with the Financial Times. I'm also co-founder of the Financial Times, this moral money platform, which looks at environmental, social and governance issues, which is what we are talking about today. Specifically, we're talking about the launch of stakeholder capitalism metrics, which is a rather unwieldy mouthful. We might also call it simply the launch of the accountant as an activist or the warrior accountant, because the initiative to promote ESG metrics is fantastically important for anybody who cares about the ESG and sustainability debate. We have something on the first day, which is we have the heads of all four big accounting firms, Pundit Rennian of Deloitte, Carmine Decibio from Ernst & Young, Bill Thomas from KPMG and Bob Muritz of PWC, all sitting together to talk about why they consider these new metrics to be so important and why this very long and very time-consuming and sometimes torturous initiative to get them launched has taken place. But we also have Brian Moynihan, who is both CEO of Bank of America and chair of the International Business Council, who's played a critical role in pushing through this whole initiative. So we're going to hear from them all about why they've done this, why it's so important, and where it's going now. But I'd like to start perhaps with Brian and ask you, Brian, why did you feel that now was the time to push for these ESG metrics? Oh, good morning, Dylan, and thank you for taking your time to help us launch these metrics. I think there's a couple key things, a couple confluence that came together. Obviously, just heard Klaus talk about 50 years ago, he put on the map the concept of stakeholder capitalism, thinking about all constituencies that a company has to operate against. And so that's one, that's the backdrop. The other big backdrop is the sustainable development goals, which the metrics align themselves again, which the IBC a few years ago, three years ago now, said our companies, we will manage our companies to help make progress on the SDGs. So that's another key criteria. Another key criteria is one of a group of assigned a letter saying we would achieve carbon neutrality, asking people to achieve carbon neutrality. And then we've had many people respond to that. But then you came down to the more pragmatic question, which is how do you align capitalism with the goals from society? And how do you make it happen? And how do you measure that? And how do you do it in a way that can consolidate all these measurement systems and bring one set of metrics that the big four accounting firms that we'll hear from my colleagues in that can endorse and help companies get through and publish so that people can judge whether they're making progress? Because the research shows that companies who don't make progress on the SDG goals or SDG goals tend not to do as well. And those that make progress tend to do better. And so the idea is to give investors, owners and others the ability to measure that progress so that we push for what society needs and use the strength of capitalism, innovation, the capital and the capabilities to help drive a fork. So it's all those events coming together. And here is a set of metrics that companies agree. And my big four colleagues will talk about how they've worked with companies, worked on metrics, but the companies agree are substantial, accountable and also meet the test of many of the different standards that are out there. Right. Well, thank you, Brian. Well, I'm curious, by the way, I should say that, you know, we are, I'd like everyone improvising right now. We're talking from all over the world. We've got Klaus and Geneva, I believe. We've got Puneet, who's over in Oregon. We've got Brian in South Carolina. We've got Bill, who's in Toronto. We've got Carmine, who I think is actually in New Jersey. And Bob, I've lost track of where Bob is, but you can tell us in a moment or I've got you mixed up. I'm in Manhattan. So it really is a sign of the times. But I'd like to... So if the links go a bit funny, please, anyone watching, please be patient. But I'd like to turn to Puneet over in Oregon and ask you, from the point of view of Deloitte, why do we need even more metrics? Because we already have an horrible alphabet soup of different sustainability standards. SASB, TCFD, GRI, et cetera, et cetera. Why do we need another one? First, thank you for the question. I think Brian addressed it, Jillian, to achieve results and make progress against CSTGs, we believed and the IBC agreed that we needed a common set of metrics that everybody could sign up to. And that's exactly what this project has achieved. And Brian said this quite eloquently. I think it is proven that businesses that focus on all stakeholders and the planet over the long term do better. And so what we're trying to do here is measure and as a result, achieve what the STG aspirations are with the common set of metrics. So try to incorporate the other metrics into what you're doing or have them running parallel. And then I'm going to turn to Carmine. But go ahead, Carmine. Oh, well, actually, Puneet, first, just to clarify for anyone watching, are the other metrics going to run in parallel or be incorporated? No, our initiative calls for these metrics to be adopted. And they're a common set. And we've gone through a long process. We've taken a year. We've engaged extensively with the IBC members, which are the leading companies in the world. And we focused on the four areas that broadly encompass the STGs, governance, people, prosperity in the planet. And we believe that the core metrics and the expanded metrics provide a common set of metrics that companies are prepared to sign up for. Right. I'm going to come back to the issue in a moment about how they dovetail with other metrics. But Carmine, explain to us why the International Business Council got involved, because there are other bodies out there which have been promoting metrics. Why has the IBC and the World Economic Forum played such a pivotal role this time around? Yeah. So, Jillian, to reinforce what Puneet just said, the IBC got involved and really got involved because it was a place where companies belong to and we could really make progress on companies adhering to a common set of metrics. As Puneet said, we started over a year ago and we decided that we were all going to work on this together. We all took one of those streams that Puneet mentioned and worked on it with Brian's team and with Klaus's team from the West. The whole concept was to not create new metrics, but to take all the metrics that are out there from all the frameworks that are out there, so GRI, SASB, we were actually involved, EY was involved in a project called Epic. We took all those metrics, consolidated them, worked with the IBC members for over a year, as Puneet said, to come down to these 21 core metrics that we feel incorporates everything that's out there. We're not trying to replace anything out there, we're just trying to convene and come up with a common set of metrics that companies can sign up to. There are regulators, there are standard setters, there are other organizations out there that have metrics that are pushing us along, but this was the time, the convening power of the IBC and WEF where actually companies could come together and commit to something we thought was very important. The idea of having all the big four working together, which is something that as far as I know, we haven't done much of like this, has worked really well. So we've incorporated most of the, all the metrics that were out there, we have a common set, and we're really asking the IBC members and other companies in general to commit to these 21 core metrics. Right, right. Other than understanding, it's actually the first time we've had the CEOs of all the big four coming together for a joint webinar like this, I mean, not quite on the same platform, the same virtual platform, I guess, this is the Countings version of Kumbaya moment. But I'd like to ask you, if you have a company coming to you now saying, okay, so you've made this announcement, what does it mean for us? What are you telling them? I mean, is there a clear sort of idiot's guide to how to translate this actually into business action and are all the big four giving the same message on this one? Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Jillian. Let me just pick up on your point. I mean, I think this, I'm incredibly proud of the fact that we're all involved in this. And certainly in my tenure in this role, I can't think of a time where we came together because, and I think it just highlights the importance of the topic. So if you think about the benefit to companies, I think there's to your point, there's lots of benefits. But if let me just focus on a couple. So consistency, these metrics allow companies to report in a consistent way. Why is that important? They set their strategy and transparently report against it. They've now got a confidence that there's a level playing field. And I think that that frees them to sort of make decisions that can happen today. And why I think we've, Carmine talked to it, we found the report has been well received. So in the report, you'll see 85% of the corporate respondents believe that this is good for their company and even more believe that it's good for financial markets and the economy. But I think the biggest reason, I mean, if we're talking to any stakeholder through this process, one of the biggest reasons to do it is the impact on people. You know, if you think about attracting and retaining the very best people today, they want to work for an organization as a purpose beyond simply profits. They know that business has to play a role to build a better, more sustainable society. And to a point that was mentioned earlier companies that lead on this reporting, they can look their employees in the eye and say they are walking the talk, which I think truly helps to attract simply the best and the brightest. Right. I mean, because the other question I have is, you know, how globally coordinated is this going to be? Because, you know, we haven't managed to have globally coordinated accounting standards in non-sustainability sector. Is your vision that this is going to be globally coordinated or globally adopted? And if so, how does that dovetail with the fact that, you know, the European Commission is producing its own metrics right now and America or the federal element of the American government is going in different direction? I mean, Bob, how would you square that circle right now? Yeah. So, Jillian, it's a great question. But let me go back to the premise. The premise is this is good for society. Society's got a number of challenges. And as a result, society should benefit from this effort going forward, which is getting the right information in people's hands to make these judgments and take action. In order to do that, we want to have consistency across the world. And what we'd like to do and avoid is that fragmentation that you described earlier. And what we're hoping for here is this is basically led by the business community. We're trying to get ahead of that alphabet soup from the various agencies and we're trying to influence the regulators around the world, the standard setters around the world, the rating agencies around the world to say, these are the ones that we truly believe as a business community are the right measures to start with. We're not looking for perfection. We're looking for progress. And we'd like some consistency to demonstrate both that progress that Bill just talked about and that comparability. So the whole peer is that as we go forward, we will lead, just like with accounting standards, generally accepted before rules and regulations come into place such that the generally accepted and those that are practiced influence the rules, the regulations. And then we can cascade and scale those rules and regulations for more alignment, more consistency, and better comparability on a worldwide basis. Right. So, and Brian, from the point of view of the financial community, is this going to become the benchmark for deciding which companies banks like yourself will actually lend to or not lend to? Or, you know, who investment groups asset managers should be investing in or not? I mean, is that your hope this becomes basically the way you tell, you know, where money's going to flow? Brian? Well, I think that that that's a that is a true goal of this and the other. So the first goal is to actually do the right thing and help make progress in the SDGs. But if you're operating a company, you have a lot of people coming to you saying, do this particular element, do this particular element. Well, this is more comprehensive. Number one and two, it's driven on a set of metrics that all the companies can disclose over time that gives a chance to be judged consistently and independently. And so if you think about that, that's important. So as a lender, we're often asked to not lend a community to company A because they're in industry, in industry, or not in as an investor, if we have $3 trillion in assets under management or wealth management platforms, not allow your your your clients to invest in company A. What we're hoping to achieve with this is saying this isn't a binary invest, don't invest. Think about having 10 companies in an industry being able to see consistent metrics across all of the ones at the top who are doing the right thing and making progress and whatever goals they set, should be lent it to, should be invested in, and should be encouraged to keep going. That's the care part. The ones at the bottom who either haven't disclosed or have disclosed and aren't making progress, people should ask them, when are you going to make the progress? Because the end of day, what these metrics represent is the progress that society wants companies to make in order to help meet the goals of society. So that clarity and that setting, it has a benefit to companies because they know what to disclose and how to disclose it, but also has a benefit to lenders like ourselves, we can then use it and say, look, look on those metrics, you don't have to be number one, you just have to be doing something and making good progress in accordance to your goals, then we can stay with you and help you make that transition happen. And I think that's an important difference between a divest, a binary divest or don't invest or lend or don't lend decision, which becomes completely about just sort of getting out of an industry and doesn't become about helping make all these industries make the transformation, whether it's on human capital issues, but importantly, the environmental piece is what this has a lot to do with the near term. Hey, Jillian, the one thing I'd say, if I can, this is all about information and information actually drives decision making. And to Brian's point, what we're looking for here is, for example, a company should have better information to make their own decisions in terms of how to incent change, behavioral change, process change, and focus consistent with the strategy. The investors, as Brian rightly focused on is, let's get the investors the right information to make the right decisions to have the biggest impact. As Bill Thomas talked about, let's make sure that the employees or future employees have the right information to say, who is doing what and where do I want to actually contribute as an employee going forward? As a consumer, who's making the progress? So we're looking for is demonstrating the right progress and, yes, using these to make choices, be it an insurer, investment bank, analyst, or otherwise. Jillian, that comes back a little bit to the question was, because this is driven by the businesses saying, we agree these are the metrics that implement the SDGs, we believe we can disclose this and we will disclose these. What you then have is a consolidating effort among all the different standard bearers of rating agencies that everything Bill talked about, to drive them towards a set of metrics. Now, there'll be different points of view. Somebody will have a metric they like better than one of the metrics we chose, etc. But these metrics represent a lot of people's thinking and these four colleagues of mine who did a lot of work, a lot of companies, to boil down. Everything existed at all the different standard setters and said, what are the important ones that companies can actually do? And that's a critical thing. This is a doable scheme. And so we already have companies that will be signing up and going, it's a doable scheme as opposed to it's a theoretical scheme. And we're about to actually getting stuff done. I was just going to add, to me, it gives companies and it gives analysts a chance to really look at companies for the long term and look at their long term value as Bob said around clients, people and society for all stakeholders. And I think these metrics as they get developed, as people disclose them, you'll be able to really see a company's long term value as opposed to some of the financial metrics out there now that are very short term oriented. So I do think it will be incredibly important for investors in particular long term thinking investors. So I'm curious, I'd like to bring in both Puneeta and Bill on this one. In terms of the breadth of these metrics, are you not concerned that they will end up looking like a jack-of-all-trades and master of none, that they're just too broad brush to actually have much meaning and that your faith more targeted about greenwashing, going down the, or woke washing, going down the path? Puneeta or Bill, do you have you on that? Yeah, look, I think there's a potential risk there, Gillian, but the truth of the matter is, is that a set of 21 metrics that cover the gamut of the four topics that we talked about with a comply or explain type mindset and mandate attached to them. Brian's point about momentum, pragmatic, and listen and tweak for potential unintended consequences is a way better route than another two years of analyzing, try and get it perfect, and actually don't do anything. So is it going to be a perfect right out of the gate? Are we going to run into the potential for what you just described? Sure, but I think as long as we have the right attitude, the right mindset, and we work with the organizations, we work with the standard setters to tweak this as we go, we're going to be way better off than we would if we did nothing. And I think what I would add is, as has been said, we started with the broad funnel. We looked at all the metrics, and we've in a very pragmatic way narrowed them down in four critical areas that cover the entire gamut of the SDGs. So you're looking at about three or four metrics per area in a very pragmatic, tangible way. Listen, it's been said, but I want to reinforce the point. This is not only the right thing to do, it is the right business thing to do. And for all the points that have already been made. And so, Gillian, I believe it'll be a small set of tangible metrics, and I think they will be based on, in the least, the companies that we've interacted with over the last year, there will be a good take up on this. Any of you concerned that in a country like America, which is very litigious, having these metrics might leave companies open to liability with? I'm happy to take that one start, if you want. But those risks exist today. Right. And these risks, again, let's go back to the basics of what was said. What we tried to do was actually talk about and gather the metrics that already exist, and put them together in a framework to get that progress and comparability noted. And as a result, one of the challenges, not only from a US, but a worldwide perspective, is to talk about the downstream implications as we move forward on this journey. And that's where actually working with the regulators and agencies, government agencies, Gillian's going to be so important as we progress this on a going forward basis. The reality is the stakeholders want to need this. A lot of cases, they're already getting it, perhaps in bit pieces in a fragmented way by those companies, by what they say to an analyst, by what they say in a transparency report or a corporate responsibility report, bring it together so we can actually demonstrate the comparability and progress to actually bring it to life. And we'll work through the liability issues as we move forward in various countries. It's not just a US issue. It's actually a much broader issue as we look at the world today. But hopefully we focus on the good and not necessarily downside and those minimal issues. I'm going to say minimal, don't get in the way of progress. We know we got challenges, but we got to take this first step. Otherwise, we'll never move forward. Yeah, the other, I mean, this was brought up, Gillian. And in fact, Brian hosted a number of companies just in August when we had our summer session at WEF. And one of the CEOs that was in my focus group brought this up. I think it's a legitimate concern. And if you think about mitigating risk, you certainly have to mitigate legal risk. But if you're looking long term, you're also interested in brand and brand risk. If you don't do this, I think you are subjecting your brand because there are multiple stakeholders that are asking for this to to risks. So you've got to, I mean, we're certainly going to mitigate legal risk, as Bob said, but brand risk needs to be taken into account as well. So in practical terms, as I understand it, but none of you are yet able to implement all of these 21 or 34 metrics right now in your own operations, but you're aiming to do so in January. Is that correct? And you're hoping that the IBC members, so 130 of those will be essentially most of them will be implementing it in the 2021 accounts. Is that correct? Brian, do you have any thoughts? Sure. Gillian, the path forward really was, this started almost two years ago with this group of companies talking about short term, long term issues over the last couple of years before that. And we came to the idea that one thing you had to do is be able to measure stakeholder capitalism and long term strategic progress on the things that are critical. And so this has been a long time. So there's been a lot of work done to sort of decipher the metrics and go through them, everything my colleagues have described. That piece is behind us now. The consultation's done. This has been taken in front of many, many different accounting groups, standard setters, rating agencies and investors, et cetera. So now the idea is today we released the document. And now the question is what do we do next? Well, we have a bunch of companies who have signed up and said, I will start disclosing these. Sometimes they can't disclose every one of them because they're still working on the calculation going to your point that you want to make sure it's right. And those accounting firms are helping them figure out how to make sure that number is findable through the books and records of the company and can be, you know, attested to and make sure the CEOs and the CFOs feel comfortable. So one is we get companies signing up. But with the goal of between now and sort of January timeframe when the web enemy would be we'd have a group of companies signing that would be released, that those companies are on board to disclose immediately what they can and then what they can over the next couple of years and then sort of roll through. The question that comes up then is, okay, those are big 130 companies. What do you do after that? Well, all of us have been working with groups of directors that are on medium-sized company boards, even private investors saying these metrics may not, every one of them might not apply to a non-public company, for example. But the idea is we have to get all companies to agree that this goes on or a substantial majority. Otherwise, you might start to see arbitrage to private companies, state-owned companies who won't agree to make these disclosures. So that's another round of work that's going on. But the core near term is get the people to sign up and start disclosing and let that momentum carry this as being a standard of which then the rest of the standard bears can start to coalesce around. Right. So basic message is, although Davos is not going to happen, the World Economic Forum in person in January, there will be a round of online meetings and discussions in January. So watch this space and there's going to be a lot of work in 2021 coming up in relation to this. Sadly, very sadly, we are out of time. There's going to be a virtual session afterwards in the lounge, link to top link from where the World Economic Forum, where anyone who's watching who wants more discussion with a friendly accountant will find representative, senior representative from the Big Four waiting to answer all of your questions collaboratively. And also, you can read the entire report online at the website. So it just remains for me to say a big thank you to all of you from taking parts from everywhere from Toronto through to South Carolina through to Oregon and Geneva and Manhattan. Thanks to all of you for watching. And on the personal note, I should say that as someone who trained as an anthropologist, I used to think that it was going to be activists, anthropologists chaining themselves the bulldozers who are going to change the world on the green side. It's been quite humbling to discover actually may end up being a new breed of warrior accountant who's picking up the green and social activist agenda. But accounting is something which is not usually seen as being deeply cool or involved in activism. But it's certainly interesting to see how it's developing now. So best of luck to all of you in trying to reshape the world through the accounting systems, we'll be tracking it closely at the Financial Times and Moral Money platform. And I look forward to hearing more of the debate through the World Economic Forum and IBC going forward. So thank you.