 So if you will join me in welcoming Rihanna Nathu, founder and CEO of Spectrum Impact, under Iroh Yatagoyenna, vice president, the Impact Engine, Jessica Matthews, global head of sustainable investing at JPMorgan Private Bank, and Yusuf George, managing director, Engine number one for this session entitled, Greenwashers Beware, using ESG for good and not for evil. With that, I'll turn it over to Rihanna. Thank you, Monique. Hi, everyone. Welcome. Thank you. Congratulations for making it to the last day of SoCAP. Everyone here gets a gold star for staying for the last day of SoCAP. Good on all of you. We're pretty excited to be today because we have an opportunity to sort of take everything that we've heard this week and bring it to you live when we're talking about ESG, which has been highly topical this week. So thank you for hanging with us. I am beyond thrilled to be on stage with these three folks. You know that. You have access to their bios. But I think what I'm particularly excited about is that everybody on this stage has had a time in this space as both student and practitioner, which is a really, really unique and very humbling combination of expertise. So I'm hoping that everyone here today and even all of you through the Q&A function will have a chance to really share what we've learned and then also what hasn't been going great, what we see improving, where we see this field going. Unlike the wonderful debate that happened on Monday, we're gonna move away from a conversation around whether ESG is worth keeping. We all chose this industry. So, spoiler alert, we probably think yes. And we're gonna talk instead about what happens when it is used well and then what happens and the dangers of it being used poorly. So you all know how to do this. You've been doing this for five days now, but please, please, please submit questions in the chat. We will have ample time for Q&A. We can't wait to hear from you. And we're gonna kick right off. So I'm gonna start a little bit with a question for everybody. Question to give you all a bit of a sense of how everybody on stage uses and defines ESG and then specifically how their organization practices it. So, Ander, maybe we'll start with you. Yeah, for sure, happy to. So yeah, so I work for Impact Engine and we essentially do two things. We invest in impactful companies and funds and I sit on the fun side of the investing that we do. And for us, really, ESG, I guess the place to begin for us is really to just recognize the difference between ESG and Impact, right? For us, ESG is about risk management and for us, Impact is about creating outcomes. So for us, whenever we're sort of looking at ESG, it's really sort of almost table stakes for really good financial investing, right? Because it's a material risk to any business and we sort of look for that to be deeply underwritten. Now, that takes a variety of different forms through ESG policies, memos, things like that. But yeah, that's a little as to how we sort of view it. Amazing, thank you. On to me, all right, great. Thank you, thank you for having me, Rahana. I just had embarrassing little tidbit is I found out about 15 minutes ago that we were on the main stage and not in a breakout and that's just poor planning and understanding on my part. Thank you for including me in this main stage thing. I'm sure there are plenty of my impact investing friends in the room. I'd like to see you, but these lights are so bright. We have no idea. You're out there, but we can't really see. Anyway, good to be here. So yeah, that was perfect because I'm just gonna completely agree and just kind of layer on a little bit more specifics to add to how we do it. But that was exactly kind of in our same thing. We have, you know, my title is the Head of Sustainable Investing. So that's the term that we like to use at the private bank. We think it just encapsulates a lot of different approaches and honestly it's just best defined by those approaches. So then we get very specific and I spent a lot of my time trying to educate advisors at JP Morgan about these differences because there's so much confusion. There's so much conflation of terms. So we're very specific. First you start with values based investing which is kind of a little bit of a rebrand we did around what's been known as, you know, exclusionary screening. Our friends at Open Invest who we actually acquired a year ago as you may have seen uses that term and it's really great because really clients are trying to reflect their values in their portfolios and you can do it by excluding, but with them we're actually gonna find ways to like lean into things that clients care about. But there it is really still always about a client value and I think we'll come back to discussing more of those specifics too. Then it's on to ESG so well defined so I don't need to add to that. But that is kind of one of our key approaches and you know, different ways of looking at ESG though I will say that we view ESG integration, you know the holistic looking across an entire portfolio as a bit different than an ESG strategy or a strategy that has a distinct sustainability objective within an ESG fund. So a little bit of a nuance there but totally agree with generally the definition that you gave on that. Then we go on to thematic investing. I think that's kind of pretty well understood but a lot of clients have interests in specific areas so we develop and curate options around those different themes and then on to impact investing of course which you described so well too. So that's our four part framework and that's how we think of it. Amazing, thank you. Hey. Hey. Really excited to be here. So thank you everyone for inviting me. Use of George, I'm managing director of active ownership at engine number one. And defining ESG is a tricky thing. I spent about 10 years in this industry and came at it from the ESG data and rankings side of it first and way before that, before I got gray and lost all my hair I was on the finance side of things. At engine number one we think about ESG as criteria. It is data. It's data sets that we use to embed in our models. We think a lot about sustainability of a company, right, to your point. And the way that we define it is we think about is a company meeting or exceeding the cost of capital while internalizing all externalities. Basically the positive and the negative impacts that they have. What we think a lot about is like when we value a company are they creating positive benefits for their stakeholder groups or they're not? And if they are it should extend sort of the terminal value of the company meaning they will exist for a long period of time because they're more sustainable. So we think a lot about sustainable businesses rather than ESG and ESG's criteria and data used to manage risks as we embed them into our models. I love that. And I think the exercise that even we just did is critically important because shared understanding of exactly what we're talking about needs to be a part of every conversation. The work that we do in Spectrum is basically to build impact investing strategies for clients. Almost all asset owners are asset managers and I can't count on my fingers and toes how many times we have someone walk in with a definition that doesn't serve them actually. It might be the right definition but it's not right size to what they wanna do. And so it's encouraging that in the work that every single one of you does starting with a framework, starting with an assertion about exactly what we're talking about here as part of the job, it might seem boring. It might seem like the unexciting part of what we do, especially when you've spent 15 years in the space. But some reminder even sitting here that it's critically important. So thank you all for doing that. I wanna move for a second to the idea of active engagement. This to me is an area that is unbelievably fascinating. And Yusuf and Ander, you both do this in very different ways. And I was hoping you could share with us what does active engagement mean to you and where and when is it critical in the work that you do? And Yusuf, maybe we'll start with you. Yeah, for sure. So maybe it's helpful for me to perhaps start with who engine number one is. We're fairly new to the investing world. We've only been around for two and a half years. And the way we think about things as an investment company is we think that there's an incredible opportunity right now because there is sort of a once in a generation moment happening where there's a transition of a couple different systems. Think about the energy transition. Thinking about the auto space. Think about supply chains and supply chain disruptions. Think about food and ag, water shortages, droughts, et cetera. So there's these transitions that are happening. And what we try to do is identify where there are companies who are leading an effort or who have identified strategies to lead through that transition. Very famously we, and I'm sure we're gonna talk about some work that we've done with Exxon, but there's work that we've done with companies like John Deere or General Motors because we've identified and we underwrote companies for the long term who we believe are gonna lead through that transition. Now, I bring that up because the way in which we work is we collaborate with companies. We use what we call active ownership, how we engage on accountability and transparency, how we collaborate with other investors, how we do our sort of deep-rooted engagement work in a very focused approach. And as an active owner, we believe that our job is to help to accelerate companies' investment and value into their stakeholder groups through this transition. Ultimately, because if there is greater investment in stakeholders, the company will be more resilient. At least that's our belief and that's what our models show us. So when we think about active ownership, it really comes down to those three things, which is accountability and transparency. It is about working deeply with companies and it's about collaborating with investors as needed to really ensure that there is long-term alpha generation for shareholders, for our end investors, but also greater investment in stakeholders. Yeah, I love that framework, thank you. And then for us, Yusuf has the privilege of sort of doing ESG in the public markets, impacting and operating the private markets and right as I mentioned, we sort of investing both in companies and funds. When we're looking at the company side, so everything from investing in a series A, all the way to a series C, D, et cetera. What we're trying to do is to use almost ESG as a due diligence tool on the way in and usually our process entails by getting to understand the business, understanding what are its public comparables and then using the SASB industry standards to sort of understand, what are the particular material factors that are relevant for this sector in which the company operates? And with that sort of standards, which is really sort of built on a pragmatic sense, it's not an exhaustive list of 200 items that's usually focused at around 10, we sort of use that to have conversations with the company on the way in to sort of understand where they are in their ESG journey. Then when we sort of turn into portfolio management on the companies, the board seats that we hold, we usually hold them to sort of be the voice of impact in those companies, to really sort of make sure that the impact at the board level is sort of being protected and thought about and really ingrained into the value proposition of this business that no matter who's running it, no matter who this company exits it to, it's so ingrained in the value proposition that it's gonna be there for. And our job is really to sort of take the maturity of right investing at a company at a seat stage all the way to when it's sort of ramping up to a potential IPO or wherever, you're sort of introducing more and more complexity in the ESG reporting and in the impact APIs that we're tracking. And so we're sort of working with them to maybe the first couple of conversations, it's like, hey, FYI, this are the things that we wanna see from you and it's okay if the answer for this quarter is SNA, but let's sort of develop a strategy so you have visibility. And we try to do it in a very pragmatic sense and in a way that is not just a burden to sort of report to us, but really setting it up for success for when they're public. And then for when we're investing in funds, it's sort of similar. We sort of try to work with them to see, hey, this is how we do it when we invest in companies. Obviously, if it's a venture fund that applies, if it's a middle market buyout fund, there's all this world of ESG consultants and environmental consultants and sort of third party reports, but the idea still sort of holds that whenever we are investing in funds, we like to be on the LPEC and we like to be the voice of impact on the LPEC and make sure that throughout all these due diligence processes that these firms are doing that there is a clear systematic, pragmatic way of conducting ESG due diligence. Yeah, and hopefully a resource when things get hard, right? Exactly. Jessica, I want to stay on that because I think the responsibility that JPMorgan has across the due diligence function is huge and being able to do due diligence effectively as Andre and Yusuf both intimated is hard, it's challenging work. Can you talk to us a little bit about what that looks like within your role? Yeah, absolutely. It is hard work. And it's interesting too. It's hard on the fund managers in some way because they have to do two things really well, right? We are always trying to justify our existence and that they're gonna perform just from a financial standpoint if that's the goal which generally what we're looking at is funds that have some kind of market rate performance goal. And then we also expect them to have a sustainability objective that they can demonstrate to us. And that portion is really important to the discussion here today because we have to be looking for funds that are legitimately doing that and so-called avoiding greenwashing. Yesterday I was actually on one of our own client event panels and that panel sort of like a different take on this panel. It was called sustainable investing, promises, pitfalls and execution. And again there it's like talking about how there's so much confusion and almost like there's ways in which we've weirdly over promised on what ESG to deliver where people have mistakenly thought that ESG was something that it isn't. And so we again, back to our framework we really try to be very specific. So on the due diligence questions specifically I give that as a backdrop because on the performance side we do, we think it's really important to convey to our clients because they're looking to us to be very thorough on our due diligence and we do the same due diligence for any fund so-called SI, sustainable investing labeled fund as we do for anything else. We run them through a 4P process as we call them really digging in on who the people are so in the case of a sustainable fund or they have the right people to execute on understanding whatever sustainability component is in the portfolio. Increasing that's really important in these thematic strategies like as we're talking about like energy transition issues that's not just like ESG analysis that's really like, do people understand the implications of an energy transition? So really important on the people, the philosophy so the philosophy comes into why they're doing it how they're doing it, how they're embedding it you know just digging in on that then as you can imagine kind of one of the more important things is the process around it. What are they actually doing to embed sustainability? How are they looking at ESG? And that's where it's like you really have to spend time on the active side with these portfolio managers because you have to like get deeper and ask them the questions so that you start to listen to how they're using ESG as an input if it legitimately feels like it's driving a stock buyer sell decision and so that's really important and then of course the 4P is on performance do we think that they can deliver for their stated goals both sustainable and performance? And then I just add one thing too that really leverages what my friends here just said which is especially in equities, public or private we really like to see managers that are engaging because that's where you can dig in deeper and have impact so we think some of the best managers are also gonna tell us a story not just a story but demonstrate how they're doing, how they're engaging with companies there could be entry points where they don't feel like the company's perfect but they got in there to make the change so that's a really important component for us too so we really are trying to avoid greenwashing it's why I made the distinction earlier between an ESG fund and ESG integration because we ourselves are trying to be better on ESG integration but we don't say that that's a sustainable investing fund and I think it's a really important distinction yeah I wanna double click on this because this framework has actually helped us immensely in the work that we do so this differentiation between ESG in process and ESG as outcome is quite valuable because I think a lot of folks that are new to the space tremble a little bit and rightly so to be labeled as an ESG manager there is, we're seeing it now politically we're seeing it now in public discourse there's a lot of heft that comes with that and so for folks in the room that are feeling that way maybe your stakeholders are not as keen as you are I would just encourage you to think all three of the folks on the stage have talked about it but looking at ESG as part of your investment discipline is accessible to everybody whether you call yourself a sustainability manager or not there is a process framework here and then there is an outcome framework here and we all could be ESG wise ESG smart investors without ever really having to go and sit on panels and talk about ourselves as ESG funds or sustainability funds and so I really I loved what you said there and I think it just needed to be underlined that it's not that hard of a goal if we sort of chunk it out into little pieces yeah thank you for that Yusef I wanna come back to you because I actually think engine number one has had quite a few victories in the engagement space some obviously more public and popular than others you all successfully managed to get three independent directors elected onto the Exxon board that are really thinking about the way that the company thinks about the energy transition and what does the world look like post fossil fuels and then by the same token I think we misunderstand how complex active engagement is and so there was a few ESG proposals this year that didn't actually meet the mark of what you wanted and I would love partially from my own education quite frankly but I would love to just have you touch on why is it so hard? Why is it so complex and maybe not as obvious as we think at it? I think the first place to start is we're talking about ESG aggregated which is within itself very difficult if you break out the E, the S and the G it is they're all really nuanced and it's all really important and I think we always start with the G governance, if you don't have a good governance strategy then you probably won't have a good environmental strategy nor will you be actually investing in your workforce or providing health and safety and understanding the values of the communities that you operate in so it all starts with the G. Exxon was really interesting because for us we were able to bring a number of investors to the table on our campaign which really made some key arguments that were rooted in economics. While the energy transition is incredibly important as an underlying story, for us it was will Exxon exist 10, 20, 30 years or not based upon the governance structure that they have right now? Energy transition is real and very publicly they weren't mindful of that in their long-term strategy and so we were successful in getting someone who has run a successful energy company and someone who has successfully transitioned in energy company, someone who has the wherewithal to understand new technologies that may be helpful through the transition. Again it's really about extending the terminal value and while we absolutely need fossil fuels in this day and age right now, 20 years out, will we? And if they don't shift the strategy will they still exist? So that's why we were successful there and there's a lot of nuance to how we think about decarbonization and energy transition and I'll use General Motors as an example. We've been engaged with them over the last year and a half and we are trying to engage companies about the future that exists now. We often talk about what's gonna happen 20 years out but right now companies are implementing strategies that they need to do in order for them to build cars that are gonna be on the road in 10 years. I, this is a complete aside but I was driving in Brooklyn recently and that I'm from Brooklyn and I was sort of backing up in parallel parking and I thought to myself like I don't even need to look back anymore. Like there are all these cameras that are embedded on this car and I just, I don't have to and my four and a half year old will never very unlikely that they'll look back when they're parallel parking. And I was like the future is here right now, right? And so when we think about decarbonization, when we think about the strategies that companies are actually putting forth for us engagement is about understanding are you investing in the battery plants that you need to right now? Are you investing in workforce? A workforce that will be resilient and that will be paid well, paid a living wage. Those are the types of things that we're engaging companies on and we are hoping and trying to ensure that over the course of the long term, we understand not only the strategies that these companies are taking but also the nuance to how they're going to implement such strategy. Yeah, so if you were to come across a company that sort of had a really wonderful plan on one of the three dimensions ES and G but the other two dimensions were particularly poor, is that, would you say that that is actually a prime opportunity for active engagement or are you looking for sort of a baseline across all three? It's a little bit of an unfair question because it lacks context. Totally unfair. Every company is absolutely different, right? I think if you look at a company like Tesla, they are doing really great as it relates to battery electric vehicles. But if you look at some other elements on the social side, they're not doing so well. Especially as it relates to diversity and inclusion. If you look at a company like GM or Ford, we need them because consumer behavior and preferences have shifted. And so we all know that we're gonna use, we're gonna be driving electric vehicles in the future. If incumbents like GM and Ford aren't at the table, then unfortunately, we're not gonna be able to decarbonize that in the rate that we know that we should. Yeah, no, I love that. We need to see change, not little movement. I appreciate that. Under, I wanna come to you because I am a huge, I'll just say it publicly, I'm a huge fan of Impact Engine because I think it's really hard in the space to wear a lot of hats and to do it well. You all have a unique perspective where you, in addition to working very directly with your investees, you get to be an LP. And I think as an LP, trying to look for ESG is a very different process. Can you share a little bit, both good and bad, about what that looks like on the other side of things? Yeah, for me, so we talked a little about on the way in coming to sort of a fund, you wanna make sure that it's documented, you wanna make sure there's an investment process in place. And then more importantly, when I'm sort of reviewing the diligence that a fund made in an investment and I see the 100-day plan, if I notice that there was an issue in the third party ESG report, I wanna see that directly in the 100-day plan. And that's sort of all almost when I'm concentrating on the financial ability of this fund. Really my value at or sort of my biggest time when I'm sort of deliging a fund is sort of really looking at the impact. And it's almost an impact question and diligence versus an ESG one. And that sort of starts with everything from the portfolio of the companies, right? That's, I would sort of say in today's age with so much greenwashing going on, where there's amazing impact reports with numbers of millions of life's touch, beautiful pictures, et cetera. I really don't, I like care about the narrative, but what I wanna sort of see and ultimately is the biggest test is what are you investing on and what is your impact thesis and I'll come there. And then similarly, right? But this is a panel about ESG. So for us, for example, there's a fund that is investing sort of using an advantageous sort of policy insight in order to invest in critical services in this country, everything from education, financial services, and healthcare. And one of the things that they're really amazing at is diversity and inclusion when it comes to ESG. They've gone all the way to high-excited competition to sort of rectify the shortcomings identified during diligence, all the way to gathering business leaders in a community to sort of write to the major and say, hey, your response to all this racial equity activity over the summer is just not appropriate and if you don't change things, we'll sort of move appropriately. So it's sort of really both, I guess, sort of directly answer the question, it's you wanna see that there's a process in place, you wanna make sure they're following that process and then you ultimately wanna see it in the authenticity of the managers and the portfolio that's being reflected. Right, so for the funds in the room, what I hear you saying, but tell me if I'm putting words in your mouth, is that progress counts? Progress counts a lot. And I would actually even argue that, for instance, we invested in another fund that invested in the largest industrial park in Great Britain. It was the single largest property in the UK that per square feet emitted carbon into the air. And we were like, obviously, first conversation is like, why the hell did you invest in this, you know, like? And then we talked to them, right? And there's a really powerful story that they're taking the most pollutive asset which has essentially all the know-how of being a traditional oil and gas services company and that having the know-how and infrastructure to take on the green hydrogen revolution that's coming. And through essentially buying out the company, transitioning the future pipeline of contracts from oil and gas to sort of the new government supported infrastructure for green hydrogen, that is such a compelling story. And if you talk about the scale of magnitude, because they're an impact fund, fully article, mind complying, et cetera, and you see just the amount of carbon attainment that they're doing from that transaction, even though it's not immediately apparent when you sort of go into the website, that sort of active engagement and that sort of progress, I would argue, is sometimes even more impactful. I love that. Yeah, thank you for sharing. We're gonna do one more question and then switch to Q&A. So if you've been holding onto one, now is the time to get in the app and send something to this lovely iPad, which I will read. So please send us your questions. Jessica, I wanna talk a little bit about trying to meet clients where they are. JPMorgan is huge and despite the largeness, you have built a truly firm wide approach to sustainability, which is incredibly impressive and I imagine incredibly challenging because not every client is coming to you because of your sustainability prowess. How does that conversation go, particularly for the clients that aren't very keen or interested in the space? How do you meet them sort of where they are? Yeah, and I'll mostly answer with regard to the private bank where I sit and I can actually have an influence. I don't as much at the firm level, though I partake in a lot of these conversations, but it's no surprise to anybody in the room. Everybody's seen the headlines even lately when he was in Washington, what Jamie says about energy and the energy transition feels very strongly. You just said it. We are gonna be sort of, and one of our colleagues wrote on this, stuck with fossil fuels for longer than we would like is kind of what the tagline was. And so we, especially now what we've seen this year is that that's unfortunately really true and there's actually geopolitical issues and viability issues and security issues around meeting energy. But at the same time, of course, we are so committed to that energy transition, which again, when people write about energy at the firm, they also talk about the energy transition and that it's irreversible and that it's here. And of course, that there's a lot of investments to be made. So at a firm level, very committed and working with clients to pursuing, we have goals, large goals around both sustainable development goals broadly. We have a DFI at the firm now, which is pretty badass. And also, more specifically on green initiatives, we set up a center for carbon transition. That's actually really important. It kind of like goes to what you do. Like you're in a different way. You're in there influencing Exxon. We, in a totally different way, have that ability too because we work with them in our investment bank. And so there's lots more examples of that and where we can really have influence and literally this center for carbon transition is helping clients. Right now it started off with oil and gas sector, power sector, energy sector, auto sector, excuse me. And so trying to move clients and help them. So anyway, so that's firm-wide. Let me bring it to what I actually get to influence on the private bank. And so it kind of comes back to what I was saying about the four different approaches because it's about listening to clients. We are not going to clients to suggest in any way what their values should be. So that kind of category of values-based investing is always going to be us in receipt of what clients want to do and helping them do that. So really for any stuff you can imagine, you don't go to clients and tell them what you think that they should do. That is just up to them to decide and we can help customize portfolios for client preferences. But we are getting much more comfortable now talking to clients about this notion of ESG and why it matters to portfolios. So as an example, I keep mentioning these ESG funds. We've done diligence on them for years. We have a really great, robust platform of funds that we can offer to clients that we call sustainable. At the same time, I hired somebody earlier in the year who came to us and he's the head of ESG integration. And he goes around to all of our portfolio managers, the CIO, and really teaches them about ESG. And that work was underway. We thought it was important. Then the regulators decided to tell us that we had to do it anyway, so it's really good that we had it in the place because that's really needed. So I think we get just so much more comfortable now being on our front foot saying, this is important, climate risk is financial risk. Things like that were much more comfortable saying. And then maybe the last thing I'd add to your question is, where do we get really comfortable leaning in? Is on some of these thematic ideas? We, a fun thing that happened for me in 2019, I've been at JP since 18, was that I found out that our capital markets group, our investment strategy group, the people who kind of like articulate what we're gonna tell clients, decided to articulate three mega trends. Digital transformation, healthcare innovation. And the third was sustainability. And I wasn't in the room. And so that was just something that people who look after like serious mega trends that are gonna go on in the financial services industry and what we should be telling clients decided that we should be telling them that this is a place to invest. So that's like a pretty big statement. And I loved that. And I love and it's so true that I was not in the room when that happened. That was just done independent of me trying to be a cheerleader around these issues. So that is something we're really presenting to clients. So like a tangible example of that is like, we will have like a sort of like, here's where we think you should invest today. I mean, obviously these things, these kind of recommendations change with market circumstances. And now we have this kind of mega trend articulated and there are some investments that we're just putting forward as good investments. Oh, by the way, if you're sustainable and you care about climate, you might wanna do this. Of course, a banker would bring that idea if the client said, I'm interested in climate, but you don't have to say that to your banker. Your banker can just bring you these ideas because we put them forefront as good investment ideas. And that's a really exciting development and something that we're doing more. So it's more on the front foot on some of these issues than just waiting. I love that. No, I love that, right? Because it is an appropriate, and I mean that truly push-pull. You need to both be, remind people what they're missing because they don't know what to ask. And then also, still have to do a job where you sort of meet their needs where they are. So I love that. I really appreciate that. I'll switch to questions because as is probably unsurprising to all of you, there's 100, and we have exactly 13 minutes left, so we'll probably not get to all 100. But thank God for socials, so please feel free to connect with any of the folks on the stage. I can promise you that they are very busy, so if they don't get back to you immediately, it's not because they don't love you. So I wanna start with the most upvoted, this is kinda cool actually, this is kinda funny. I wanna start with the most upvoted question because it's a great one. There's a really great question in here about, so something like exclusionary screens, negative or positive, that's something that almost every investor could apply to whatever portfolio size, amount, geography that they sit on, right? The idea of taking out or adding in things, whether you're investing in the public equities or in the private markets that meet your values. Not every investor is well set up to do active engagement, either by skills and prowess or more importantly, to me anyway, by size. If you're not a huge owner of these companies, we're probably not gonna listen to you. I would, and this is for all three of you, but Yusfandar, please make sure you jump in. What do you think about encouraging investors to actually do the active engagement side of things? Are you pro, con, asterisk? There's probably a third option there, I just can't think of it, but. You wanna kick it off or? Let me jump for it or should I? Go first. Well, if you're a shareholder of a company, you should be active. That's our standpoint, right? Active ownership is really important. Part of the reason why I talk so much about or we talk so much at Firm about the energy sector, the transportation sector and food and ag is because if you think about it, that's 75% of greenhouse gas emissions. We wanna go where the problems are because if we don't engage with those companies, nothing will change. And so we believe that it is really important to use any tool that you have. It could be voting your shares. It could be showing up at an annual general meeting, although a lot of them are virtual these days. But whatever tool you have to be an active owner, we think it's really, really important and so. Yeah, all that, no excuses. And then what I would just add is, look, impact engine, right? We have a brand name, et cetera, but we're nine people, a couple of $100 million in AUM. We're not that big and yet we're sort of active in making a difference. So yeah, I completely agree with you that if you have a chance to sort of be active, definitely go for it. And at the same time, if you find yourself in a position of greater influence and you just sort of seem to have the know-how or things, be honest, right? Because this is a panel about greenwashing, right? You don't wanna sort of be doing that and sort of be, so there's many resources, but as long as it's sort of on the table, that's progress on our end. It may seem with all the attention we're getting, but realistically, we're still so far from where we need to be. So yeah, I'll take any progress, anything. Yeah, I heard a little bit of that question talking about getting it to everyone and I think that's so important. And while technically my title reads that I'm in the private bank, what's really cool is that I actually sit in the investment solutions part of our business and those solutions are created for our Chase branch as well. So people who walk into a branch can get investment recommendations that we created in our platform, which is really exciting. This is one of the reasons I took this job. Like imagine the impact you can have from the biggest families in the world, but to everyone. So on the topic of proxy voting and being active, sort of stay tuned, I don't have an update on it for now, but when you acquire a fintech company, they come with a lot of cool ideas and one of them is really about democratizing access to being able to have everybody vote. So I mentioned that in our due diligence process, we like to see companies that vote, but we don't today just have the ability to just do that. We're favorite, but we're trying to get that access and I think that we'll have more to say on that in the future, which will be exciting. That's so cool. Yeah, that's awesome. And something that I heard all three of you sort of say is that part of doing this work well is not asking the questions. What neither, none of you said is you have to have the answers. You all said you have to ask the questions. And so I think one of the downsides of the space that we all operate in is that we have a really robust, let's use the word robust set of terms and definitions, lots of jargon, it's kind of exclusive, quite frankly. It's hard to break in. And so this to me is an example of sort of our language getting the better of us because we sort of communicate to people that you need to be able to talk all of this to ask really good questions. That's not at all true. That you need to be able to ask questions and a shareholder that owns one share or owns a million shares probably can and should ask those questions equally. So thank you all for sharing that. I want to, this is not actually a focus of what we talked about today, but it's a great question. So, Andrew, you were asking me if I was gonna throw any, like, rando, left side, blind side, what am I saying? Curveballs? Thank you, curveball. Clearly not a baseball fan. Clearly my hockey is showing. Curveballs. And this is an interesting one. What do you all think about critical, policy, legislative, regulatory, motions and movements that we need to really bring this work to scale and maybe just for time and sanity, let's restrict it to the United States just for the purpose of our conversation. What do you want to talk about European regulations? Yeah, that's right. They're sitting at their version of SoCAP. Fine, that's okay. That's right. Yeah, they're like. Right now. That's right. Now is the time. Now is the exact moment. What do you think? What would you like to see to make your jobs easier but then just this whole field just sort of accelerate the way that we need? That's for anyone. I'm not gonna kick off. I mean, look, this is such a whole conversation. We could have a panel and we sort of only have certain minutes. I could also sort of throw my grain of sand. For me, there's a sort of, what I would sort of love to focus this question on. There's a nuance that we gotta be aware of when sort of regulation gets involved, right? It is really good for regulators to get involved because it's gonna codify a lot of the processes and all this sort of uncertainty that we are where there's no standard. There's no one way of sort of doing things which sort of makes greenwashing possible, right? Because it's sort of up to everyone to define. Now, whatever that standard you set, there is also the danger that if you make it too stringent or too difficult, as we mentioned this, well, maybe I don't wanna be an ESG focus fund. And all this progress that we're doing of having the ability to ask the questions, and at least even if you don't have an answer, or if you're not sort of dictating that to be your strategy, there's a real danger of sort of drawing a line in the sand of like, hey, here's the 10% of people who care about ESG and they are the ESG funds and all 90% of you who don't meet this high bar, you can go back to doing the business that you were doing. That is the thing that scares me. And obviously it's a tight balance and I don't have an answer for it, but I want that to be part of the conversation. So important. I mean, I just think what's good is standardization. What I see is one of the things that we'll see how it irons out is like asking for too much precision or just like being too prescriptive in the regulation. So we'll see how some of that pans out. And I'm not sure this is really what the question was getting at, but just because on my panel that I did yesterday, I had Fran Siegel from the Impact Investing Alliance. And you need people like her, you need people going to Washington and advocating on all of our behalf. It's not something I necessarily do in my seat, but I love people like her that are field builders that are making sure that the voices of what we're trying to do are reflected in some of these policies. The only thing I'd add is we've already seen in this year the government spending quite a bit of capital to accelerate in advance some of the things that we're all trying to work towards. So the Inflation Reduction Act or the CHIPS Act, like all these things are actually helpful to companies, large public equities, and hopefully downstream to end customers to be able to provide incentives to actually do this work. So sometimes it can be really tricky if it is too prescriptive. Other times there's ways to advance and invest from the government. Yeah, I love that. Thank you. There's a question in here that I will take because I opened this Pandora's box why no one should ever give me a mic. But there's a really important question here about whether ESG has process as opposed to outcomes is inherently greenwashing and whoever sent that and the six people that uploaded it, thank you because it's a really important question. In the work that we do, I think part of the problem that we're trying to solve is the uniform taxonomy of ESG for an approach that is not at all uniform. Yusuf was sort of touching on this. I haven't ever worked with a client that nails the ESG immediately or actually nails any single one of those pieces. Really, quite frankly, we probably need three different terms that all mean the same thing because they require a completely different level of investment, a completely different level of time tolerance and patience, different actors at the table, different partnership, different scale of investment. And so building ESG in process, at least in the work that we do essentially means are you asking all of the relevant questions when you are making an investment decision? If you are investing in a very heavily footprinted natural environment type company, yes you should be looking because of materiality at the environmental exposure, but that doesn't mean that you ignore the composition of the board or the management team or the C-suite or the pay differential between the least paid person at the company and the most paid person at the company. All these things matter. And so when you have ESG as outcome alone, we've sort of facilitated an ignorance of the other factors that aren't relevant. ESG as process gives us an opportunity to ask those questions in the due diligence process to know if a particular product or fund is thinking a little bit about that. And so to me actually, it's not always an or, if done well it's an and, but ESG as process is a little bit of a baseline that we use just to make sure that we're scanning and screening, excuse me, for all the right things. I'm open to that. You know where it comes in though by the way, touting your piece that you did for Impact Alpha a couple of weeks ago which is excellent on packing some of this. But I think where this is like, and I've been talking about this a lot on stage, you've been talking about this, people are confused because ESG and we all saw the magazine, well-known magazine a couple of months ago, I went in earlier this year that said, three acronyms that, three letters that aren't gonna save the planet. And I'm like, but when did we say ESG was gonna save the, if you are saying that it's gonna do something that it's not set up to do, okay, you're getting into a little bit of greenwashing. But if you say that it's smart investing, that you should be thinking about these factors, that engagement is an overlay where I could kind of have an impact. These are the right things to say, but not prom, if you have, when we hear clients say that they really wanna influence climate or do something on climate, we recommend a climate fund. Not necessarily just trying to tell them that they're gonna get those outcomes through an ESG fund. And I think that's where it's really important on that. Yeah, and under you were saying this at the beginning and I think everyone on stage here would agree that in the work that we do, if you're not thinking about ESG, you're just not analyzing risk. I mean, really, if we wanted to bring it down to the simplest, easiest framework, if you have a risk function in your firm or fund and people or planet don't matter to you, probably there's gonna be a surprise in anywhere between 18 months to eight years. So sorry about that, so we feel for you, but there is sort of this component of just better, higher holistic risk management, which I wish we could do a better job, I think, as an ecosystem of sort of talking about it that way. I want to wrap with one lightning round question. And that is, I know it's a little cliche, but actually it's my favorite part of these conversations. I wanna talk a little bit about, as each of you look out 10 years, where do you wanna see the ESG movement? And under, let's start with you. Yeah, so 10 years is a long time for me. Let me sort of break into short, medium and long. Short, I would love to see, if you sort of read the latest sustainable investments, investor survey that PVWC did, one of the facts they highlight is there is a big gap in things that are a concern and things you've undertaken action. And ESG is a thing of a lot of concern, but few firms are yet to take action. I would love that cap to sort of converge and say like, it's a concern and we're taking action. Medium term is I don't want this panel to be about ESG. I want this panel to be about impact washing. Long term, this is so happy to be back in Socap and have the ability to meet with people and a lot of the things that have changed, right? We changed venues, we're sort of now back in person. But one of the things that you notice is almost that there's very few clean tech sustainability funds here. As someone who's sort of in this conference to meet with prospective funds, I was shocked as to someone who receives so many emails about green funds that there's almost none here. Wow. I want, and it's because they have their own conferences, it's because they're now mainstream. It's because they're a sustainable mega trend. I want that to sort of have an avenue for us and have a broader discussion. Love that, thank you. Just for a little bit of context about my crystal ball because I couldn't really imagine we'd be where we are today. I, in 2007, my old boss from Cambridge Associates where I had started my career called me up and basically said, we've got this job opportunity. Do you want to come and do mission, back to the firm and do mission related investing? Which didn't roll off the tongue in 2007 for really a lot of people except some of the leading foundations doing it. And I said sure, but I was really trying to understand what that would look like. And basically what he told me was the firm was making a three year commitment to it and we'd just see. Because literally in 2007, 2008, when I finally rejoined, it was like not clear where this was gonna go. Can you imagine that? I mean, this has become such a mainstream topic now. These jobs are everywhere. The job market for things like what we do isn't so hot. So anyway, it's just a funny thing I laugh about because the crystal ball going backwards did not necessarily figure we'd be at this point. Going forward, I echo some of what was said here. I hope I don't necessarily have to have a conversation about how this is just strong fiduciary duty on the ESG front in 10 years. I kind of hope the controversy we even find this in in the US has just kind of gone away and we are more accepting of this. But also, so that kind of almost puts like ESG where it's not even discussed as much anymore because it's accepted. But I think the impact stuff, when I say 10 years from now, I think we still need to focus on it and I really hope the flows are going because that's where we really need to drive impact. And so being at the Global Impact Investing Network Conference last week, I think those numbers that they're announcing are great but they need to move forward faster. So that's my hope. Thank you. I hope we're not asking the same question 10 years from now. I mean, honestly, as investors, we are impatient. We are impatient for our end clients. We are impatient for the stakeholder groups that these companies impact. It is important that companies are setting the strategies now that will impact the next 10 years. And so the conversation about ESG 10 years out is really not a conversation that we need to be having 10 years out. It's about what we're doing right now to ensure that the outcomes that we're all looking for is what the conversation is then. I love that. Thank you all for your time and expertise so much. Thank you all for being here and hanging with us on Thursday. Hopefully more to come. Yes, thank you so much. Thanks again to Rahana, Andrew, Jessica, Nusa for this thoughtful conversation and for setting us on a course toward the good and away from the evil. Thanks again. And as a reminder to all of you, we'll be back here at noon for the closing plenary focused on activation, how to put ideas into practice. And I will see you soon.