 So with that, welcome here this morning to the breakout session on this linkage between the CFO, the CSOs, Chiefs of Stability Officer and IR professionals in terms of multi-capital collaboration. We are developing conversations within business and society at large as to what's becoming known as balanced stakeholder capitalism. Within this newest thinking are the six capitals and just for reference, human, natural, intellectual, social, manufactured and financial and finding that balanced state. Our panel today will discuss how the CFO and the C-suite engages in creating collaborations related to multi-capitals model and the practical side of what to do and how to do it. So I'd like to welcome Suzanne and John and Kathleen and thank you very much for being with us here today. I'd like you to please introduce yourselves and who you work with and then begin with just a couple of things. Tell us how your organization is looking at this problem from a reporting perspective and give us one practical example of what you're doing specifically in terms of the integrated reporting. And Suzanne, would you mind kicking us off? Thanks. Sure, happy to and really happy to be here for this discussion. So yeah, so I'm Suzanne Fallender. I lead Intel's Global Corporate Responsibility Office at Intel which really works on strategy integration across the company, stakeholder engagement including and I'll talk more about this outreach with our investors on ESG issues and also reporting and disclosure again with an integrated approach with our IR and corporate governance teams. Actually, it's been interesting for me, especially this morning's kickoff because I started my career on the investor research side and worked on social investment research at institutional shareholder services for many years. So it's been really interesting to see how things have continued to evolve especially in the last 18 months. For Intel ourselves, we've been doing reporting and integrating corporate responsibility and sustainability across our business for many years. We did our first voluntary environmental health and safety report back in 1994. So pre-GRI, but over time have continued to evolve our disclosure and I'd say that the key theme in how our disclosure has evolved has been around this concept of integration, embedding different corporate responsibility and sustainability functions across the organization and really a much tighter partnership with investor relations, our CFO, our executive leadership team and also our corporate secretary's office really looking at that connection to the board of directors. One practical example and we can dig into this too is we have across our external reporting, financial team, our governance team that does the proxy statement and my team that does the corporate responsibility report. We used to do them separately and keeping each other informed. Now we really do put together these different disclosures using an integrated approach. We're all part of the same teams that look at these and make sure that we're driving a consistent look and feel, consistent indicators, consistent messaging with different levels of detail based on the audience. But we actually have been using for the last couple of years the six capitals. So we've used that in our 10K in the proxy statement and across the corporate responsibility report and we've gotten a lot of good feedback from our investors as we do integrated outreach directly with our largest shareholders and a broad range of different types of investors on these issues. So thanks, I'll hand it back to you. Thanks, Suzanne, when you and I first talked I loved that idea of how you've integrated that process. And if we have a minute or two later maybe talk about in the proxy statement how the company looks at assurance but we'll hold that for later. Kathleen, would you do us the honors please? Sure. Well, Scott, thanks for having me here with y'all today. I'm Kathleen McLaughlin. I'm the chief sustainability officer at Walmart. And similar to Suzanne at Walmart we've been reporting for many years now in our case we first came out with our what we now call ESG report back in 2007. And we've been reporting on a whole range of environmental social and governance metrics and strategies since then. We have a ESG disclosure committee and we take a holistic view across financial and non-financial disclosures because for us we're very much grounded in this notion of sharing value. So the topics that we're taking on whether they're environmental issues or social issues or even governance issues we're always doing it through the lens of what does it mean for value creation for the business in a traditional financial sense but then what does it mean for creating value for stakeholders and making progress on whatever that issue is externally. And so our reporting tends to reflect both the sort of business impact and then the societal impact. And I can provide a bit more detail as we get into the discussion. Yeah, and given the global scope of Walmart and your supply chain integrating that especially thinking about it from a societal point of view and people that maybe are indirectly engaged in the supply chain that just the magnitude of that just is over the top and stunning. Thank you for being here Kathleen. John. Yeah, that's Scott. Thank you again for having me here. I'm John Hanselman I'm the CEO of Vanguard Renewables. We are the largest food waste recycler in the US. We recycle food waste into renewable natural gas and renewable electricity and low carbon fertilizer. So a very interesting model. We as a practical example of how we've been working with reporting. So back in 2016 we joined a strategic alliance with the dairy farmers of America who had done a fantastic job actually kind of analyzing and benchmarking what they had in terms of their emissions and all of their different ESG concerns around dairy and renewables. And we were able to work with them and we kind of come on on the practical side where we help them set an understanding of what they could be doing with those different waste streams. We then reached out and worked with several announcement next week several large food producers and retailers to kind of set the goals and objectives as to how they can attain those different levels. And then worked internally. And obviously the challenge for us is it's multi-stakeholder. So you've got facilities, the facilities management side, procurement and setting those benchmarks and milestones and being able to communicate them throughout the organization is really the most challenging part of what we do. A lot of our stuff, again, kind of we deal with some of the externalities but we try and make it as direct and measurable as possible. So being able to put that measurable data back in front of them as to current status and what you could see if you start to institute the recycling and the reusing of the renewable natural gas has been the big challenge for us. I'm real quick before we jump into the first questions that you're, John, without getting too technical, how do you deal with the data integration problem? It's a huge challenge. And again, really what we did is kind of at the beginning we learned the hard way, I guess is the best way to put it. So going in, we try and identify all the stakeholders upfront. So being able to say, who's got the different data on different waste streams, on the energy utilization, energy product units. And then get all those folks at a kickoff kind of at the beginning. That's really been our big learning, which is start by identifying everyone and understanding where we're going to get before you start even doing the data collection. There's an organization associated with the Institute of Management Accountants, the IMA, that has a task force with, I think it's over 70 people now, with just looking at data taxonomy. Just the identification of the data elements across industries. It's just a huge issue, especially when we get into interoperability and comparability and so forth. Well, so with that, thank you for those introductions. Let's sort of jump in. And one of you sort of decided who wants to go first, because we didn't sort of pre-select that in advance. But how does one in organizations go about bringing the issue, this issue, where ESG innovation and investment is, and then reporting to the forefront in an organization in terms of, A, it's importance and why we should be doing the first place. And then, B, how to go about it organizationally. How do you approach it? Or maybe set a little differently. What are some of the internal processes that you use and or recommend that can bring this together? Yeah, I can start, I can jump in. I think the couple of things. One, maybe a good example is we just launched our new long-term 2030 strategy and goals around corporate responsibility and sustainability. And for that, we really did want to take much more of an integrated approach, which I think is really the way that you can help get this embedded and get the buy-in that you need from all the different functions and really tap into the expertise that exists in all these different functions across the company. So we went through this really in-depth process of really looking at what was changing in the external environment, what was changing in the minds of our stakeholders. So thinking about how investors were looking at these issues differently, what our customers were doing. So if you think about our customers setting new long-term goals, also looking at how this was changing in the calculation for our employees and our future talent. So that was really at the forefront of those discussions as we went through the process of closing out on our 2020 goals and saying, what would it take to lead over the next decade? And so that stakeholder approach, really kind of bringing that in and as a data-driven company, bringing it back to the data, how we were compared to where we needed to be in terms of where we wanted to be to lead. But then also, how does it connect to value? So wherever possible, making that business case and being able to quantify the link between the investments we're making in sustainability with financial return. So one good example is on climate. So certainly we've done a lot to invest in renewable energy. Our new 2030 goals have a goal to get to 100% for our global manufacturing operations. We're already at 71%, which for manufacturers is quite significant, but we're pushing to do more. But on the energy side, we've been able to quantify how much we've invested in energy projects over the last several years and then how that's translated into dollars saved in addition to the kilowatt hour. So we invested 200 million in projects since 2012. We've saved 500 million in costs and 4.5 million kilowatt hours of energy. So that resonates when you're talking with different groups across the company who are engineers or financial teams of that this is not something that's separate, that they're interlinked. One other thing I'd say is that helps internally is really helping different teams to know where they can play a role in your strategy or in the disclosure. So really this whole process has helped us to not just think about finance as the CFO's office or investor relations, but thinking about other teams within the finance organization and tapping into their expertise to help the other teams across the company get the best data. So I think it's about external outside in views and helping make that connection to value and then internally really kind of focusing in on how the teams can specifically help. And very much focused on science-based metrics, the collection of that data and then the output of that data. There's a question here from Paul. I'll address this in a second. John, give us your take on this for a minute, would you please? Yeah, absolutely. So I think where we've been most successful with this is picking a very specific entry point, a project with the champion where we had a measurable starting point. So we could collect all the data and understand kind of where we were starting the process and then have a very quick kind of achievable goal where we can show a significant change. And that's been really helpful for us and being able to have that measurable attainment for something and for us, I think, especially with food waste and converting to renewable natural gas, natural gas, there are such kind of immediate and quick measurable changes on greenhouse gas and emissions. And then we kind of said, okay, let's deal with going to supply chain partners and dealing with scope three emissions and things like that. But keep it as a very focused initial program where you're kind of instantly got all the stakeholders to have buy-in and to have a win. I think that was a big piece for us. And then, John, when you do that, do you then help these various companies with sort of how to feed it back into their system? How that works against it? Absolutely. A big part of what we do is then kind of all the metrics on what's the conversion? What is that recycling creating? What is the greenhouse gas reductions? Feed that back and then talk about future plans. What are the things you can do next and next and next? And where else can we mine? And it is complicated in that you've, again, you've got manufacturing, you've got distribution and all those folks have their own silo of information. They're kind of silo of or their own preferred practice. So we're asking them to change sometimes not in a major way and other times in a significant fashion. And so you're, you've got to feed that stuff back to them otherwise you can get an initial adoption and then it kind of peters out quickly if people don't see this as something that's helping them achieve their goals and metrics. It's interesting just picking up on that, John. We have a similar effort underway with emissions, scope one, two and three, and I think it relates to reporting a bit in that Scott, the broader point I make is the reason we're having this panel is we're not in a fully-innovated world yet today when it comes to reporting. We want to get there. We're probably at different levels on different issues. And one of the ones that maybe out of the gate faster than others is climate and emissions reporting. And so one of the ways we've tried to come at it is lay the groundwork so that when the day comes, when we can have fully-innovated reporting, we're ready in terms of the quality, the metrics, the consistency, the assurance, everything else. So what we tried to do on emissions is set a science-based target under the science-based target regime for scope one and two and scope three. Our scope one and two, we actually just recently kind of elevated that ambition to kind of go beyond even the one and a half degree trajectory zero emissions in our operations in our fleet by 2040. But then to your point, John, for scope three, how do you go beyond your own and work with suppliers? And so as a retailer, just given the nature of our business, there's a lot of emissions in supply chains, food supply chains, apparel, everything else. So what we did is we lined out across all categories and suppliers kind of a platform where people can come and set goals and then we can support them in different ways in six different arenas. So energy, waste, plastics, product design, sustainable agriculture and deforestation. And then what we did from a reporting perspective is build into our platform the ability to report through CDP at the same time they're engaging in our efforts. So that way, you know, we're trying to encourage more people to disclose through CDP and follow that protocol. And they were also encouraging folks to align with TCFD. So, you know, do the risk assessment for your own company, make it into your strategy, get your actions going, reported out in this way. So we really are trying to think through convergence of how do we drive to a solution that would be consistent across industries, across sectors and so on. And then, you know, beyond that, to answer your question about how do we kind of come at it more broadly at Walmart, we start with this idea of shared value, that environmental, social, governance, financial issues and metrics are all integrated. And that for companies to maximize financial value creation, they need to be creating value addressing the needs of stakeholders. Because you don't do that, you don't have a business. And that's the whole reason you're in business in the first place, obviously for the customer, for your employees, for suppliers, for communities that all has to work together. So it's pretty integrated in terms of our assessment. We step back and we say, okay, what are the material issues in the environmental, social, governance arenas for our business? And then for the most material or most relevant issues, whether or not they would fall under SEC reporting requirements today or a strategic perspective, you know, the issues that are most relevant, we then create strategies to get some type of outcome that, you know, our stakeholders are asking for for society and that makes sense for our business. So in the case of admissions, it's about admissions reduction. And we do it in a way that makes sense for our operations, our fleets, suppliers, as I just mentioned. And then those strategies typically involve actions we can take as Walmart using the assets we have, our products, our services, our operating model, could be jobs, could be purchase orders, relationships, advocacy. So they're pretty robust strategies, as robust as our customer strategies to go after those things. And then they're embedded all throughout Walmart. So the real estate people are the ones that are driving the renewable energy, you know, power purchase agreements. And the merchants are the ones that are working on packaging. And you know, the people teams and the operators are the ones working on upward mobility of entry-level people, you know, training and so on. So whatever the issues are, they're very much embedded right in the business. So the relevant metrics get reported from an operations perspective right on people's day-to-day management scorecards. And then some of those, depending on SEC requirements and so on, end up in our actual 10K. And then the ones that don't, that are still relevant for making progress on these issues and relevant for our business, those are in our ESG report. It's still, you know, I think as Suzanne, you were saying there are two different reports, very much related and shaped together for slightly different audiences and different standards. And then we do see that converging more and more over time. Wow, we had all talked before this session put together some notes and now I'm finding this could go so many different directions. But I wanna go to what Paul asked a minute ago and then I'll come back to a couple of points here. Paul asked up in the chat, what sustainable slash ESG metrics will, do any of you think will be reported on in the earnings calls quarterly? And in that insight, is it directly related to or adjacent as it relates to traditional Wall Street? Any thoughts on that? Yeah, I can happen. We've been actually integrating different ESG topics into our earnings calls over the last year. In terms of having a standard set of core metrics, it's changed a bit each time, but we have made sure to integrate that in. It also, when we launched our 2030 strategy and goals, you know, working with the IR team in terms of making sure it ladders back to that and the strategy and which is in support of our purpose to create world changing technology that enriches the lives of every person on earth. So if you have kind of your purpose, here's how the ESG strategy is integrated and helps advance that, then having that be part of the CEO's presentation at earnings makes sense. The other thing we just recently redid our investor relations website, you know, to make sure it was a bit more integrated there as well. But I do think one of the things that we've found in our outreach, so earnings calls is one piece of the communications outreach, but making sure it's integrated in all the outreach that you do. So one of the things that we've found very helpful is doing outreach with our executives and with our largest investors as a team. So people say, oh, well investors never ask about these questions when we meet with them. Well, I think what we've found is by talking about it and showing how it's important to your business, it actually is generating more comments and questions. And so I think it's a little bit of a chicken and egg piece. If you don't talk about it, then maybe you're not gonna get those questions. And also the other piece is thinking about, just as Kathleen and I were talking about the integration that continues on that journey on the corporate side, we're seeing that happen on the investor side as well. So if you think about, there's different functions within a large investment firm. You have your fundamental analysts, you have your governance teams, you have your environmental and social analysts. They haven't always been as integrated on their side. And what we're seeing is much more deliberate integration there and sometimes we're now in calls with those teams together in the same meeting that's driving I think more of that connection to value. So I think it's about really thinking holistically, how does the earnings call fit into the rest of the communications? Yeah, we see that too, Suzanne. It's been really interesting, hasn't it? Like last five years, there's been a big evolution even in the investor community and who they bring to meetings and how the conversation goes much more integrated today. And yeah, it's the same thing for us. You know, in the earnings calls, Doug and the leadership team tend to talk about whatever that quarter is most relevant and it ends in flows but typically what you'll hear us referring to would be the latest stats related to the topics that are most relevant for our purpose as a company. And so you will hear about climate. So as we hit different targets around emissions reduction, you'll hear about waste diversion and waste avoidance. You'll hear about on the human capital side what's been happening with the promotions of our frontline people internally, something we track very closely and just the broader proposition for our people in terms of training and education. So you'll hear about that, how many people have we been developing in jobs for advancement? Racial equity is something that we've moved now to disclosing twice a year, very much more granular data about the advancement, the hiring, the retention of women, of people of color broken down by race and ethnicity. And that's something we wanna do every six months because we think that'll help us go faster. You know, those will tend to be some of the things we'll talk about. And you know, some quarters there's not a lot of news to report and others there is certainly at year end. That's when we do our big assessment of the total year. So we tend to talk more about it at that time. I love the transparency of that. That is just huge. And it's a testament to a good governance model. John, any other thoughts on this first question? Yeah, I think I can only speak second hand to it but what's interesting at least from our standpoint is, you know, we have over the last seven or eight years been working kind of with a lot of the early movers in the ESG movement. And what's remarkable now is that even in some of the more traditional oil and gas customers of ours, they are a hundred percent focused on being able to bring forward metrics and data about what they're doing and what their plan is gonna be over the next decade to meet all the goals of on climate. Before we cascade into some of the science-based stuff two quick questions. Do the three of you, have you seen a marked change in interest levels in the last two or three years compared to years before? In other words, does it feel like it's crossing that knee of the curve? That's the first one. Let me just stop there. Are you seeing a change? And how, yeah. I mean, do you think it's hit the knee of the curve? I think we're, yeah, I think we're in the hockey stick part at least from my perspective. Yeah, I think it's been steady for many years but I think the level of conversation and different types of conversation I've seen both internally and then the types of conversations we're having with our investors. So on the investor side, we do our, in addition to the year round outreach we do, we do kind of a focused outreach in the fall as we get ready to think about the next 10K, the proxy, the corporate responsibility report. And so we've been having meetings last week and into next week, including some of the meetings had at our chairman of the board in the meetings with us because I think directors are now increasingly having these direct discussions with investors. But I think what I've seen is the engagement increased with our CFO and our CFO's office. Our CFO sits on what was mentioned this morning, the Accounting for Sustainability group but also having the engagement from the Treasury's office, other, our internal audit, external reporting, all these different groups really starting to have that discussion of, how do we take this to the next level? So, and if you think also, one of the big things about our, and this goes back to what Kathleen was saying, our strategy for 2030 is different than our goals for 2020 were. They're much more collaborative and aspirational in some of these areas. We do have a clear quantitative goals and what we're gonna do ourselves to reduce our footprint of Intel's operations and our supply chain. We've also set out these collaborative initiatives to work with others in the tech industry to advance work on diversity and inclusion more broadly throughout the technology sector to work on how do you get more companies to be able to adopt science-based targets given that our industry had done a lot of early action before and how do we continue to really look at that product impact. We make one part of the technology system but we really can enable sustainability across all of our technology customers but also for a whole other sector. So really driving those different conversations that means you're talking with sales and marketing more regularly. That means you're talking with different product teams and some of the deep, deep experts kind of in our R&D areas of how do we really rethink conceptually, how do we move the market? So that I think is what gets me excited and I think makes it that there's so much more opportunity ahead. Challenges and the complexity increase dramatically in that. So it doesn't mean it's getting easier but it is definitely I think creating more opportunity. Any other thoughts on that one? Yeah. Yeah, just picking up on what Suzanne just said, so many of these issues that we're tackling in the environmental or social arena certainly maybe a little less so in terms of governance are about transforming systems. These are not easy things, right? To decarbonize business to John, what you guys do, right? To avoid waste and make something good out of what would have been waste otherwise, waste energy, that's a big thing. Equity, my goodness, it's a systemic transformation, right? And so from a reporting perspective, one of the things I like about the six forms of capital as a framework, I think it's really interesting is it does help you perhaps focus on some things that could be leading indicators or might take some time to show movement. And then of course, we consider the broader system around something like climate or equity. There's so many other factors to consider and report on. And so I think even if we get to a world where we have truly integrated reporting in terms of outcomes, environmental, social, governance, financial and a nice succinct 10K, we'll still wanna have some other companion materials and reports to get deeper into other elements of the system that are shifting and evidence of things are moving and these things are so complex. It's one of the things that makes it a little bit challenging to come up with the one metric for making progress on climate emissions, yeah, I guess, but all the things that sit behind it that have to shift to sustain that. There's 20 metrics that we need to consider. Yeah, it's one of the things I'd follow on, I think with what Kathleen's saying is remarkable, what we see is kind of at the staff level, everyone has accepted or most folks have accepted climate-based targets. They've set some set of goals and criteria at the CFO, CSO level. What is interesting about the reporting is it's now forcing folks internally to kind of look at their standard practices, as Kathleen was saying. What are the things that we can change and what you see or what we're seeing kind of at the ground level is an understanding that these things actually now matter and that need to be in that reporting structure, they're in the KPIs, they're in the things that the people are doing to kind of on their daily work schedule and that's a big change. And that's I think where you kind of see that hockey stick kicking in, which is where really everybody on the team has an understanding that this is something they've got to do. I think as both Kathleen and Suzanne said, not small, these are hard things, the easy stuff is already done. You know, now it's like, okay, what are the component pieces where we can really make dramatic change still? And again, I think it's Kathleen, not only in-house, but with your supply chain partners and say, okay, how do we get those scope three emissions to start trending the way that you wanna see them go? We're gonna touch on science-based metrics here in a couple of seconds. One final question here. You know, in Sarbanes-Oxley, there is a new standard of attestation that's made by the CFO and the CEO that has really like very big teeth in it. It's very powerful. Do you see that standard and the related assurance items getting in the way of people disclosing this stuff because there's a concern, hey, maybe we can't get it to the same standard? And if so, would you have any recommendations or what are your recommendations about how you deal with it in your companies? Yeah, I mean, one thing I would say about what we're trying to do, as I mentioned earlier, we're trying to lay in the infrastructure so that we could be ready for fully integrated reporting on environmental, social governance metrics and so on. And it is true that a number of the metrics historically don't rise to the Sarbanes-Oxley level of standardization across industry. Do people use the exact same definition for that metric company to company industry to industry? The quality of the data gathering and the controls environment that sits behind, those metrics can be highly variable. And so I do think we have a ways to go to where we'd have every company being at the same definition and level of quality and so on. So there's a lot of work going on in many places, many companies to try to move in that direction. So for example, for us on the question of assurance, we have started with things that are easier, things that are quantitative metrics like emissions, somebody can come in and look at that and validate it and measure it. And as I mentioned, we disclose their CDP and we've had Deloitte helping us with various pieces of Lucidian coming in to assure the numbers of our school and that sort of thing. There are a lot of other arenas where we work where we're still even trying to figure out what the metrics are. So for example, by doing something like forced labor in the seafood chain. Okay, that's an issue way back in the chain in Southeast Asia. It's pervasive. It's certainly not like a Walmart issues. It's the whole industry. And what would you measure? We funded studies to look at prevalence and incidents of slavery way back in the, it's the part of the chain where they literally catch the food that they then feed to the seafood. So we've done like the one I've studied to do like prevalence and incidents for the field. What would you do that every year? And how would you know if that, and that's clearly not something that's gonna show up in the 10 case soon. But I just used it as an example to show probably the hardest thing to measure, which would be human rights in seafood. How would you ever know? And you've got everything between. So from that to emissions, all kinds of levels of complexity, right? But that's the direction of travel. So what we're trying to do is put in place the processes so that when people have a number that they wanna disclose, there's a claims process, a validation process. It gets vetted at least internally. We wanna start vetting it externally. Like that's the direction of travel for sure. And I think we'll see more and more things going that way to where we could say, yep, ready to put that in the 10K when that day comes. We've touched on this a little bit, but Phil Kloss in the audience asks a question related around racial equity and specifically blacks in the US and maybe broader social justice and inclusion. Question is, has your engagement with your CDO and with your finance and AI are changed and or accelerated in this past year? And are you, in what way are you making or are you making bigger commitments in terms of targets and goals? And are you getting ready to share those commitments? Yeah, so I can start one of the things that we actually had released our 2030 goals two weeks before George Floyd was killed. And we already had set out pretty big ambitious goals to not only double the number of women in our senior leadership ranks, but also underrepresented minorities in senior leadership. So we had had that out, but right after that occurred, certainly our CEO was very vocal in those early days, a lot of deep engagement internally across our employee base, especially in the United States, but globally. And we have done some additional acceleration of the work that was already planned underway, but by really kind of engaging with our employees directly. One of the things that has been important for us is being really open and transparent on where we are and where that we're not satisfied where we have been and understand the complexity of what it's gonna take to continue to drive true inclusion, not only until but across the industry. So in terms of my engagement directly with her, I've always had a very strong relationship with our chief diversity and inclusion officer as well as our chief people officer. And actually the last two months, we reorganized a bit and now I'm actually working directly for her in that organization so that we can elevate all of this work together. Because we do think that human capital management, engaging employees around all of our 2030 goals, not just in the social space, but in the environmental space is really gonna take that driving that accountability throughout the whole company at all levels. So I think that's, no matter where CSOs or CROs sit in an organization, I think we always try to figure out where does it need to sit at certain times so that we can go faster. And one thing I'll just say also on the assurance piece, because a lot of what Kathleen said, I think reflected our journey as well. We started actually doing third party assurance back in 2012. And over the years have really, we could start more on the environmental side and we really have that, moving into the more social metrics starting with health and safety, but then actually doing assurance over some of our diversity metrics as well. And we are happy we've done that because I think it's continued to strengthen our internal systems just as there's more and more focus on the investor side around the S of ESG. So I do encourage, it's certainly a learning process. It's, you're not one of Don, you talked about human rights and seafood. Certainly we learned a lot through the conflict minerals process of something. It was way down in our supply chain and really understanding how do you engage and do assurance over all of that work as well that then helps across the rest of the more process and long-term. What I just add on the racial equity question is, you know, similar to what Suzanne said, we've had goals and programs efforts underway for quite some time, but there's no question this year represents an acceleration. I think for so many in society, which is good, it's needed because obviously the outcomes when you look at disparities faced by black people and African-Americans in any system you want to pick, health, education, financial, criminal justice, massive gaps. So yeah, we have absolutely redoubled our efforts and we're looking at it in a couple of ways. So one is our own associate base in advancement. We have 6.8% this year and it hovers in and around 7%. The last couple of years representation of black and African-American people in our officer ranks. And it's more like 20% at entry level. So like anything else, you look at women, you look at indigenous people, Hispanics, black people, you tend to get that pipeline attenuating where senior you go. 6.8 is not bad compared to like the average company, but it's certainly not where we want to be if you consider 13% of people in America or black or African-American, we got a ways to go. So we're focused on that first and foremost. And as I mentioned earlier, we're now publishing twice a year our stats on that pipeline at a much more granular level than we ever had before. If you want to check it out, just Google it and you'll find the most recent one online. Our first one I should say at that level of detail we'll do that every six months now. So we've redoubled that. And then what we've also done is said, okay, well, wait a minute, what about our customers? What about our suppliers? What about communities? We have so many assets as Walmart that we could be using more creatively to be at the table addressing systemic racism, more head-on. We've always been addressing it as part of other things, like the supplier diversity program and we source 14 billion a year from diverse suppliers, things like that. But we never said, okay, let's take head-on this issue of racial equity as it pertains to the black and African community in America as a thing. What would that look like? So we've stood up for different teams. One is non-criminal justice reform, one's on financial disparities, health disparities and then education as it pertains to workforce. And what we're trying to do is say, okay, well, where do we have an asset? We got a product, we got a service, we have jobs, we have purchase orders, we have our voice advocacy. What are the things that we could bring to bear in a different way that might help address the issue in partnership, obviously with many, many other people. We're like this much of the solutions, but we can be acting differently or better. So that's what we're trying to do. We're just in the middle of it now. Those teams have been in listening mode the last few months and we just launched a center for racial equity at the Walmart Foundation, which I also lead. And that is earmarking philanthropic capital to put against what we do in our companies. So these things could go together. Philanthropy, we've committed 100 million over five years, which on the one hand sounds like a lot of money. On the other hand, that is a drop in the bucket. Like the real action needs to be through our business assets and then the philanthropy can come in a targeted way and kind of extend and expand that. So that's how we're approaching it and we'll be reporting progress as we go. I think we might have lost Scott. So we can jump in on that at all. Equity and diversity and inclusion have always been at the forefront of what we do. But there's no question that over the past year, you have to reexamine all of your base and understand your goals and those that are achievable and those are aspirational and really move towards those. So it has certainly increased for us. So I have a question. I'm just going to go right down the list here. Well played. Great. The target, was he coming back in? Anyway, how do you ensure a science-based approach to goal setting and external reporting? So how do you guys get close to the science in the work that you're doing? When you set your goals, does that play a role? Yeah, sure. I mean, for us, it's 100% of what we do almost. And so for us, it's pretty straightforward. And then the wonderful thing about dealing with renewable natural gas and food waste and greenhouse gas emissions, which we're trying to impede, you have to set that base data. And so going in first and benchmarking, I'm sorry, not benchmarking, so setting your understanding of where you're starting from with any and all of our customers is kind of first. And then what has been surprising to us is kind of the secondary and tertiary things that we can measure. So what else, what's happening on the farms? Are we, we've been able to bring this low carbon fertilizer to the farm. So being able to say, okay, what's happening with their reduction on synthetic fertilizers? And how do we then quantify that? And I think there's, what's wonderful about science-based goals is it kind of forces you to go back and say, okay, what are all the different levels in fact? And can you measure those? And can you report those? And it's been great fun for us to kind of unleash a whole bunch of very, very smart, much smarter than me, go out there and look at each one of those sub-components and saying, how do we quantify those? And are they important and meaningful? And if they are, how do you then report them up and out? Yeah, and then we've done some similar approach of really looking at kind of that system level that we're looking at our goals. We've been setting climate-related goals for a long time and also working together with others in the semiconductor industry to really drive that change that if each company did it on their own, you probably can't get to those higher level of commitments and reductions. We actually had led work back in the 1990s around PFC reductions as part of the direct emissions. And then over time, we've continued to invest in driving different investments and different technologies and really digging into the data and working with outside groups and understanding where are some of these opportunities? We've actually been able to drive a 31% decrease in absolute emissions over the last two decades, even as we've considerably grown our global manufacturing operations. One of the things we're looking at now with our 2030 goals is we've set out to achieve carbon-neutral computing, a big global challenge where we know we have to work with all the other tech companies, but also kind of a much broader ecosystem to drive that and really are gonna work directly through a technology industry initiative as part of the goals around helping other companies to set science-based targets. One challenge in the current methodology is it doesn't always take into account all the reductions that have already taken place. It doesn't mean that you don't wanna help everyone redouble their ability to get an approved science-based target. So we've continued to, even as we're working with others in the industry to move that discussion forward, continue to set targets to reduce absolute emissions as we're growing. So I think a lot of good learning, we're in a data-driven engineering company and a lot of external partnerships with academics. So thinking about how do we keep moving that forward? So another question for you guys that I'd like to know more about is where do you think investors go from here? So I agree with you, Suzanne, that we're kind of on the upswing of what feels like a hockey stick of interest and relevance. What have you been hearing is helpful or needed from investors as they seek to make decisions about where to put their money? Yeah, I think the questions, most of the questions to date have been really just trying to get data to understand how to even begin to really integrate that into the process. So I think it's been really focused on transparency and disclosure. It's been focused on governance and oversight processes to really understand are these truly being integrated? Is the board involved? Is senior management involved? Or is it just talking points? I think we're moving now, especially as you have more of the fundamental analysts coming into the conversation, you have more people really trying to dig in to understand what is the connection of this work to value. I think that's this next phase, right? So I think it's now really digging into the performance connection. It's digging into, does it reduce a company's risk? Is a company managing it better than their peers? And are they actually investing that creates more market opportunity? And there was a really good research report by George Seraphim recently that was really looking at, right now a lot of the disclosure we're talking about is getting everyone to kind of the same, right? And basic information everyone's put in place, similar programs. Really, how do you change this into more of like strategic advantage? So really thinking about it through the strategy lens and how does this help you advance the business? Not just just doing what you have to do, but how do you really turn it into that strategic advantage? I agree so much. And one thing that I've been thinking about a lot is, you know, historically, people who were in the investment community had some sort of investment thesis, right? They might look at a company like Vanguard Renewables or Intel and go, okay, so here's my thesis. Here's the company, here's the value they create. This is how I think they're creating the value. They go interview the management team, right? They look at everything that you report and your progress. And they will come up with some sort of view that says, hey, I'm gonna put my money in Intel or Vanguard Renewables because I think I'm gonna create value in this way, right, and that was the story. I think we need the same level of rigor around ESG. So for someone to go, hey, here's what I think Intel is doing around this issue of climate or Vanguard Renewables for waste, they're gonna transform in these ways, right? And have a view that relates to the environmental or social or governance factors that are most of interest to them or their clients. And to do that, yeah, you need the data and you also need to do the problem solving or the modeling, right, to have the view on those things. And it's not as simple as just, tell me what your omissions is, ooh, that's good or bad, like it has to factor into a view. It reminds me early on, this is like five years ago, we got a report card from an ESG ratings firm or a survey, I should say, and they said, well, tell us, how much fuel did you use last year? Well, we own our own long haul fleet in Canada and the US. So the answer is a lot. We don't outsource for a free party, we use a lot of fuel. And they literally sent back our report card and gave us a sad face. And then we had the competitors had happy faces because they outsourced all the logistics. Well, the business model is critical, right? So that's why I think the more people can look at that context, we have the same thing with, sometimes we get compared against fabulous semiconductor companies. Of course our water is gonna look higher or direct emissions. So it's exactly that example you said. So I think that's the best case. And what do you do about it? What's your strategy, right? One of the reasons we have our own fleet is we think we can run it better. We think we can be more efficient. We think we can accelerate to a carbon zero fleet. And that's where we're at for all those things. So it's just, if you look at this. Right, but you're getting hammered in the meantime, right? That's great. He's hammered. No, and I think that it was... I guess I might, yeah. While we're finishing this question, John, maybe just throw it out for anyone who wants to put additional questions in the chat, as I think we have a few. No, and I think that was so interesting about Bob Willard's presentations before. As more and more those tools can be standardized, where you can have that comparative reporting so that you're not getting crushed because you happen to actually have a better fleet and are using better engines and better fuel types, but you're actually still consuming at that level. It's fundamentally important as we're all grabbing science-based goals to make sure that you actually create the metrics around that and understand the metrics and have them as comparable. Cause I think the ESG teams are growing significantly. We see this all the time within all of the different groups, but they have to have a standardized kind of review platform so that you're not getting hammered as you're actually doing some virtuous work and getting penalized for it, not great. You don't want to incentivize bad decision-making. Where do you see things going in terms of providing that data? So one of the things I've noticed is a proliferation of organizations that each have a different set of data requirements and questions, lots of surveys that we get kind of over the transom. And I would say two, three years ago, we used to answer each and every one of those, right? Somebody would come and say, I've got the survey, can you give me this information? And what we found is we couldn't keep up. And we're now in this in-between period where I don't think we're disclosing enough at the level of detail that would satisfy all these people, yet we can't answer each of them. So we're trying to go more in the direction of just disclosing as much as we can, make it easy to find by topic. And that way, if anybody has a survey, we can say, oh, we'll go look here and here for the answers, right? But we're not quite there yet, but that's where we think it's going. How about you guys? Are you feeling that? And how are you addressing that? Yeah, I think we've, and we get asked a lot, both by our suppliers, but other companies, about how do you even get started in this? It's overwhelming, you know, with all these different ratings. And even a company that we've practically engaged with the ratings for many years and continue to do so, we do need to prioritize. And so one thing we, two things we do, one, we do try to optimize our public disclosure so that we're answering the majority of the questions across the multiple frameworks. So we're not going to chase every rating that's out there. We're not going to use every part of every framework necessarily, but we are going to make sure that our disclosure that's going out to, you know, the public and to all of our stakeholders covers the things that we think are a most important to our stakeholders, but also matter for our business. So there might be things we decide not to disclose because we actually don't think that's the right measure or you know, there's limitations on the context around putting the data out there. The other thing we do do, especially on the investor side is every time we do our outreach meetings, we ask, you know, which frameworks they're prioritizing. We ask which ratings that they're using the most. And then we spend more of our time making sure that data is as accurate as possible. So within the sea of acronyms and frameworks, making sure that we know which ones and we can explain that internally to our finance teams and to our executives. Here's why these are the ones that we think are worth spending more time on because obviously you both live this, you know, there's a trade-off in doing the work and reporting on the work. And so you have to get that balance right to make sure you have enough time to continue to drive those important strategic discussions internally without just spending too much time trying to re-correct information or, I feel it. I think it has to be standards. I mean, I think this is in forms like this, I think have to push and call for standardization within the ESG analyst community. Otherwise it really is open to all sorts of question and doubt and manipulation and that doesn't work. And so to have it be effective and efficient and something where you can actually compare apples to apples standards have to start to be kind of, and super granular, I mean granular, sorry. You know, you've got to really be able to go down into the, what are the dimensions, right? What is equity and diversity? I mean, those things have to be specified. And I think that it's a huge challenge, but you know, we've done standards before many, many times. I think it has to be applied here as well. Looks like we had one question from the group. So it's what are the biggest challenges you've seen or faced in partnering with finance and IR and any lessons learned? Yeah, I think my biggest challenge over time has just been kind of the questions in, you know, IR's head of, well, how do we make sure that we really know the quantification or does this connect to value in finding the research studies and finding kind of the data and detail that helps them make the case to others, I guess. I think one of the key learnings and benefits has really been building a true partnership with investor relations. I joke with some of my counterparts at other companies that say, how did you get IR to talk to you? But I'd say, as soon as I joke, it takes a special kind of investor relations leader to be open and to really think about and listen about how these things could be connected and kind of work together with the other teams across the company and executives to do that. But I think it certainly helped a lot of other companies as investor relations is getting directly asked in their meetings to kind of look inward and really drive that internal discussion. Cause I think it makes every team better. I think it certainly made me more disciplined and how we're thinking about the metrics and thinking about how do we, you know, what we pull together for the business case. So I encourage everyone who's, if you're on the corporate side, start that conversation and don't leave out your corporate governance teams. Cause I think that connection to the board and the corporate secretary role is really critical. It's just as important as with your CFO and IR teams. I'll let you take it. I think we've got two minutes. That's all yours. Well, you know, somebody once talked to me about this notion of the value of the seat. You know, and what's the value of the seat for a chief sustainability officer, whoever, you know, one of the titleists who holds that kind of role at a company. And I think that's really where it starts is actually going more with the CEO and the total leadership team and have it. If you don't feel that this world is integral and you aren't already joined at the hip of IR and finance, that's the place to start and say, what is the value of the seat? Cause if the company doesn't appreciate that these things are totally intertwined, it's going to be really hard to get the attention of the IR or finance or whatever it really has to be something that CEO leadership team right throughout is a thing. And so I'd say if you're in that position where your company isn't quite there, work on that as your own little work stream in parallel with everything else you got going on. Cause the day you get that, you will be joined at the hip with the finance person and the IR person. And that's really where we all need to get to. Hey everybody, I'm back. Welcome back. I tried to mobile hotspot in but the band wasn't enough and a Comcast took about six minutes to get back live. But I was texting people and they were saying, you guys are doing great. We were just reading from the, your great notes and you got into the chat. Well, listen, I think we're at the hour. So I think we're going to have to have to part. So I'm glad I made it back just to say thank you. That is super great. And I can see from the chats that everybody kind of just took over. I love that, that's collaboration. And any real quick, any quick summary thoughts from any of the three of you, just in closing? No, I think that there's just a lot of opportunity here. I think it's just transparency, integration and connection of value. And so how do you keep driving those conversations like Kathy said at all levels of the company and engaging, especially your CEO and your CFO and leadership team on moving that conversation forward. Well, Shannon. Perfect. Well, with that, I bid everyone to do thank you very much and enjoy the rest of the conference. Okay. Thank you, Scott. Thank you for joining us. Thank you, Scott. Bye everyone. Take care.