Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Dana Perkins and you're listening to Switch It
Speaker 1: on the b n F podcast. So what is a taxonomy? Well,
Speaker 1: what immediately comes to mind our species and some of
Speaker 1: the stuff I learned in my high school science class,
Speaker 1: or maybe some of the stuff that we find out
Speaker 1: about when watching a documentary by David Attenborough. So when
Speaker 1: we talk about the EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities, what
Speaker 1: I'm thinking is that there must be an awful lot
Speaker 1: of stuff that needs to be classified and this taxonomy
Speaker 1: will help us do it. So if you want to
Speaker 1: actually know what it is, Mark Taylor and I have
Speaker 1: sat down with Maya Gottamer, who is an analyst researching
Speaker 1: sustainable finance for BENF and she's going to talk to
Speaker 1: us about this EU taxonomy. If you're in finance and
Speaker 1: you're focused on environmental, social and governance issues or e
Speaker 1: s G, you likely know what this is, as there
Speaker 1: has been quite a buzz the past couple of years
Speaker 1: and it's all really coming together now with a deadline
Speaker 1: approaching in twenty two. But if you're not, you might
Speaker 1: be left wondering what was it designed to do and
Speaker 1: how might it impact business and finance. Well, Maya recently
Speaker 1: wrote a research piece titled EU Taxonomy, How to Prepare
Speaker 1: your reporting for two And if that's a bit advanced
Speaker 1: and you're thinking what is going on with all of
Speaker 1: the E s G terminology, you can go back to
Speaker 1: a primer that Kyle Harrison wrote last year titled Shifting
Speaker 1: through the Corporate Sustainability Alphabet soup. These are both available
Speaker 1: on b NF dot com via our mobile app, or
Speaker 1: for terminal subscribers at b NF Go. Now, Nope, b
Speaker 1: NF does not provide investment of strategy advice, and we
Speaker 1: always have a full disclaimer at the end of the show.
Speaker 1: And for now, let's join Mark Taylor and Maya Gottomer
Speaker 1: for today's discussion on the EU Taxonomy. Maya, thanks for
Speaker 1: joining us. You're welcome. So today we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about the EU taxonomy. Now, this is something that governs
Speaker 1: things that are considered a sustainable activity by a company,
Speaker 1: and Maya is going to tell us all about it.
Speaker 1: So Maya, let's start off with what was the taxonomy
Speaker 1: hoping to achieve and really what problems where they trying
Speaker 1: to solve when they originally set it up. Basically, the
Speaker 1: taxonomy is part of a bigger action plan that was
Speaker 1: set up by the European Commission. It was back in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eighteen, after assigning of the Paris Agreement
Speaker 1: a bit before. Basically they set up an action plan
Speaker 1: on sustainable finance and what they really wanted to do
Speaker 1: is that having a strong way to define what we
Speaker 1: would call a sustainable investment in the European Union and
Speaker 1: to foster investment towards sustainable activities, sustainable projects and really
Speaker 1: use finance as a tool to transition. So that was
Speaker 1: what it was done at the beginning, is still to
Speaker 1: foster green investment because it's an UNREA mentally sustainable activity.
Speaker 1: So there are a lot of existing reporting frameworks for
Speaker 1: those people who want to support on various E s
Speaker 1: G metrics. So today we're going to focus in I
Speaker 1: think on the E part. What were they lacking that
Speaker 1: there was a need for this taxonomy to come into place. First,
Speaker 1: they were volunteering. We saw TCFD which brought a lot
Speaker 1: of people on board which we were not expecting. To
Speaker 1: jump on the bandwagon of East disclosure and in particularly
Speaker 1: climate risk disclosure. You had says by g r I.
Speaker 1: But the problem is that you had too many now
Speaker 1: standardization and the goal of the taxonomy is was to
Speaker 1: build a common classification of what we call green in
Speaker 1: the European Union. So the goal was to have this classification.
Speaker 1: It would be a bed rock for future regulations, so
Speaker 1: regulation they can reach out to when they need to
Speaker 1: define sustainability and ron mentally sustainable activities in the European Union.
Speaker 1: This one was built by a combination of market participants, scientists,
Speaker 1: people who really know the industries. So the goal was
Speaker 1: to have a classification of how an activity could be
Speaker 1: under mentally sustainable in a way that it aligns its
Speaker 1: activity with the goal of the Parish Agreement. So normally
Speaker 1: the Youth Taxonomy is basically defining itself as being science
Speaker 1: based to reach net zero by and to reach alignment
Speaker 1: with Paris Agreement. Last time we had you on the show,
Speaker 1: you mentioned that the taxonomy was coming. You know that
Speaker 1: it was going to be starting to be put in
Speaker 1: place in the near future. Why are we talking about
Speaker 1: it now? What has happened since a few months ago
Speaker 1: to make this a hot topic right now? What happened
Speaker 1: is that in the European Union it's a bit more
Speaker 1: complicated to pass a law. As you may all know,
Speaker 1: you need to reach agreement between the Council of Europe,
Speaker 1: the European Commission, European Parliament. So what happened is that
Speaker 1: the taxonomy was in the pipeline. Back in the European
Speaker 1: Commission designated what they called a technical expert group, which
Speaker 1: was this group of scientists and geo's market participants, corporate
Speaker 1: it's regulators that would work on the taxonomy standard. And
Speaker 1: it took them a few iteration and report to finally
Speaker 1: come with their latest report back in March, and they
Speaker 1: put this report to the Commission. The Commission had to
Speaker 1: review it, and then in July what happened is that
Speaker 1: the taxonomy regulation finally was published at the official Journal
Speaker 1: of the European Union and it entered into force in July.
Speaker 1: When I said the taxonomy enters into force, it means
Speaker 1: that a very high level text, which means that the
Speaker 1: Council of Europe, the European Parliament and the European Commission
Speaker 1: have agreed basically on the highest level of the regulation.
Speaker 1: They've agreed on that it needs to be put in place,
Speaker 1: that it's going to happen that type of thing exactly.
Speaker 1: But then what happened is that in November we actually
Speaker 1: had the implementation guidelines from the European Union saying, if
Speaker 1: you're a cement manufacturer, this is exactly what you need
Speaker 1: to do if you want to be aligned with the taxonomy.
Speaker 1: That it is too like what types of companies doesn't
Speaker 1: apply to you? Semented, cement, who else? It's super broad.
Speaker 1: In the latest report that we saw in March before
Speaker 1: it became official from the European Commission, we had I
Speaker 1: think about seventies seven, yes, seventy activities covered, ranging from manufacturing, industry,
Speaker 1: service provider, energy utilities. That sounds like a lot. Is
Speaker 1: that a lot? Seventy seventy It's kind of a lot.
Speaker 1: But at the same time you can imagine like clothes
Speaker 1: retailer were not covered, food retailer were not covered, but aforestation,
Speaker 1: food production like really commodities level were covered. And they
Speaker 1: expanded the number of activities that were covered by the
Speaker 1: taxonomy in the latest text in November, where even research
Speaker 1: are academics were covered by the taxonomy. Some activities are
Speaker 1: not even covered by the taxonomy because the European Commission
Speaker 1: it judges that in any case it can never claim
Speaker 1: to be environmentally sustainable in any shape of form, for instance,
Speaker 1: oil production, nuclear power generation. You will have some activities
Speaker 1: that will never be covered by the taxonomy. If you're
Speaker 1: a company that falls into one of the named industries
Speaker 1: by the European Commission, then you must comply with this
Speaker 1: if you want to be considered as a sustainable business
Speaker 1: or is this for absolutely all of the companies and industries,
Speaker 1: and that's something you have to do if you just
Speaker 1: want to have a business in the European Union. So
Speaker 1: the taxonomy lists all the industries that are eligible to
Speaker 1: claim that they can be environmentally sustainable, so we call
Speaker 1: it like eligibility to the taxonomy. And then after if
Speaker 1: you really want to prove that you're unvironmentally sustainable, the
Speaker 1: taxonomy will say, okay, let's say I'm a cement manufacturer.
Speaker 1: How do I prove that the way I produce cement
Speaker 1: is actually unvironmentally sustainable? So the taxonomy has laid out
Speaker 1: the different we call it technical screening, So it has
Speaker 1: laid out some tests that you need to perform on
Speaker 1: your plans to prove that your plans, for instance, produces
Speaker 1: cement under a certain level of greenhouse gas emission. It
Speaker 1: protects water and everything. So that's the first thing. So
Speaker 1: that's the way you can prove that you're unvironmentally sustainable.
Speaker 1: But not everyone has a mondatory report around its taxonomy alignment.
Speaker 1: Why everyone is now under pressing deadline about understanding what
Speaker 1: is the taxonomy? How do you prove your unvironmentally sustainable?
Speaker 1: Why is everyone caring about it suddenly right now? While honestly,
Speaker 1: Dana and Mark, you know how much I've been like
Speaker 1: talking about this since I've joined BENF. It's because as
Speaker 1: of January two, all large listed companies in Europe that
Speaker 1: are employing more than five hundred employees in Europe will
Speaker 1: have to disclose how much of their turnover capex and
Speaker 1: opex is generated or invested in activities that are aligned
Speaker 1: with the taxonomy. So basically, how much of your revenue
Speaker 1: is generated from green activities as of January two on
Speaker 1: operation of one so basically the current year. And as
Speaker 1: of January twenty two, asset manager who are claiming that
Speaker 1: they have an e s G so environmentally social or
Speaker 1: governance fund or sustainable fund, all those asset managers in
Speaker 1: the European Union will have to disclose the percentage of
Speaker 1: their fund that is aligned with the taxonomy. This is
Speaker 1: why everyone is freaking out. So this applies to funds
Speaker 1: that are located in Europe, and I'm looking at the calendar, okay,
Speaker 1: so we're barely into and for anybody who's listening before,
Speaker 1: we are located in London. So I'm gonna ask the
Speaker 1: question the elephant in the room Brexit. What does that
Speaker 1: mean for all of the investors that are located in London.
Speaker 1: So it's not only for the fund that are located
Speaker 1: in the European Union, is for everyone who is marketing
Speaker 1: or advertising selling an e s G are sustainable fund
Speaker 1: in Europe. So it means that even if I'm black
Speaker 1: Rock and I'm selling an e s G fund in
Speaker 1: Europe to European clients, I'll fall into the scope of
Speaker 1: the taxonomy. So Brexit doesn't affect it. One thing that
Speaker 1: Brexit is doing is that the UK is now currently
Speaker 1: discussing its own taxonomy. But that's not the only country
Speaker 1: doing that. She so I'm a little bit confused. So
Speaker 1: Deadline all listed companies above five employees, But is that
Speaker 1: only also within the seventy covered activities will clothing retailers
Speaker 1: be covered? At that point? Or not. Yes, they will
Speaker 1: be covered. And basically either they say that they are
Speaker 1: not covered by the taxonomy or if I am e
Speaker 1: d F and I have my whole nuclear business line.
Speaker 1: In the case of e d F, they just can't
Speaker 1: claim that they can be in any way environmentally sustainable
Speaker 1: for their nuclear business line. But however, the d F
Speaker 1: is also generating electricity from hydropower, so that counts. If
Speaker 1: they can pass the threshold, they will be able to
Speaker 1: basically claim taxonomy alignment. Is there anything like this anywhere
Speaker 1: else in the world. There is nothing like this anywhere
Speaker 1: else in the world. The more I'm talking with regulators
Speaker 1: and with central bankers, they are waiting for the European
Speaker 1: Union to put this taxonomy out because it's a massive
Speaker 1: game changer. It's going to be something big. It's going
Speaker 1: to be something that can really revolutionize the way we
Speaker 1: consider environmentally sustainable activities sustainable finance. So I heard central
Speaker 1: bankers and other regulators thinking about creating their own taxonomy.
Speaker 1: Is For instance, the Hong Kong Steering Group has announced
Speaker 1: last year that they will work on their own taxonomy.
Speaker 1: The UK has said so. It's been also mentioned in Canada.
Speaker 1: The big question will be, for instance, if I'm the
Speaker 1: Canadian government, it's going to be very difficult to to
Speaker 1: completely exclude oil and gas from my taxonomy. So the
Speaker 1: question will be to try to understand if they will
Speaker 1: try to integrate those business activities that are so big
Speaker 1: for for the country but have like very difficult freshold
Speaker 1: to each or if they're just going to exclude it.
Speaker 1: The same with the European Union has done it. Guesses included,
Speaker 1: but under very very strict thresholds. If you don't do
Speaker 1: buy a guess, you'll probably never meet those freshold. Bikes.
Speaker 1: This is a club that you want to be in, though,
Speaker 1: So if you're doing stuff that's not included in theory,
Speaker 1: you're not very happy about that because you want to
Speaker 1: be able to position yourself in this way. Or is
Speaker 1: this instead something where if you are called out and
Speaker 1: you're one of them, you're thinking, oh, this is another
Speaker 1: thing I'm going to have to do. I have to
Speaker 1: comply in order to keep those in the financial community happy.
Speaker 1: Like for some of those companies, they just will have
Speaker 1: to comply. And we've seen so far three public reporting
Speaker 1: of taxonomy alignment. One of them was Ana and the
Speaker 1: second one was Speed which is a least known company.
Speaker 1: It's basically an engineering company for network energy and they've
Speaker 1: done their taxonomy reporting. So for actually now working mostly
Speaker 1: in renewables, it was not so much of a challenge.
Speaker 1: But for Speed, for instance, it was much more of
Speaker 1: a challenge because they are also servicing oil and gas
Speaker 1: and and all sorts of different companies. You want to
Speaker 1: be I mean as a as a country, you don't
Speaker 1: want to be a lagger, so you you will have
Speaker 1: to implement something similar to the taxonomy in your own country.
Speaker 1: Because the taxonomy is addressing the threat of greenwashing. It's
Speaker 1: addressing the threat of everyone claiming that they are sustainable.
Speaker 1: The taxonomy is nothing less than you know, when we
Speaker 1: started to talk about organic product and you used to
Speaker 1: go to Tesco or sainsbury and seeing everyone calling their
Speaker 1: product organic. We saw a whole range of lexical field
Speaker 1: being used. I struggle with that, by the way, as
Speaker 1: somebody who's looking for green products, I find it very
Speaker 1: frustrating what I've feel like I've been misled, exactly as
Speaker 1: someone who is investing in her pension, I'm sure you
Speaker 1: also find misleading that someone is pretending that a specific
Speaker 1: fund or exchange traded fund is sustainable, right, and then
Speaker 1: you open the fund and you see that maybe the
Speaker 1: fund is like partially invested in oil and gas. I
Speaker 1: find this frustrating as someone who has to choose to
Speaker 1: choose her a punch and fund. So what the taxonomy
Speaker 1: is enabling you to do is to understand, Okay, if
Speaker 1: I take this very strict framework, how much of my
Speaker 1: pension fund is actually invested in green activities? And if
Speaker 1: you're a company, most of them are also willing to
Speaker 1: appeal to those sustainable investor who are not on the
Speaker 1: niche investors anymore. The whole economy is in transition right now.
Speaker 1: Do you think they're going to add additional industry though,
Speaker 1: because you previously mentioned oil and gas, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's kind of easy to throw the baby out with
Speaker 1: the bathwater with that one. But there are several oil
Speaker 1: majors who out there making great strides to pivot their business.
Speaker 1: And what if my values based judgment is an investor says,
Speaker 1: you know what, I want to keep them in because
Speaker 1: they're transitioning, and another person says, no, I don't really
Speaker 1: want them in if they're not in there in the taxonomy,
Speaker 1: are we going to have the transparency that we need
Speaker 1: in order to make those values based judgments. One of
Speaker 1: the big criticism that the taxonomy has received it's that
Speaker 1: it's really black and white. It's really manichean. It's either
Speaker 1: you're in or you're out. You can't be transitioning. So
Speaker 1: I think that the same way Marcus was asking at
Speaker 1: the beginning, like if I'm a cloth retailer or I'm
Speaker 1: a cloth manufacturer, how can I claim that I'm environmentally
Speaker 1: sustainable those kind of cases, you could imagine a cloth
Speaker 1: manufacturer under certain threshold being able to produce garments in
Speaker 1: a sustainable manner, So those could be added. The technical
Speaker 1: expert group that was sta bleashed back in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eighteen to work on the taxonomy basically has been
Speaker 1: replaced by something called the Platform and Sustainable Finance, and
Speaker 1: that's gonna go on for another two years. You can
Speaker 1: reach out to them if you think that you can
Speaker 1: claim that you're environmentally sustainable and that you're not covered
Speaker 1: by the taxonomy, and then they can think about technical
Speaker 1: screening criteria like tests to actually prove that for your
Speaker 1: own activity. So that's the first thing. The second thing
Speaker 1: about the criticism around like for instance, oil and gas. Indeed,
Speaker 1: we've covered it as BENF actually that a lot of
Speaker 1: oil and gas companies are currently transitioning. But the reason
Speaker 1: why I think the taxonomy is still could appeal to
Speaker 1: them is that if you take the oil and gas
Speaker 1: companies like Shell or BP, which have made climate neutrality pledges,
Speaker 1: they've also started investing in renewable and they've started gen
Speaker 1: racing revenue from renewable. Now, for a very short break,
Speaker 1: stay with us. Can we go back to who's really
Speaker 1: pushing for this? As you're talking about it, I keep wondering,
Speaker 1: is it like the EU that it's trying to put
Speaker 1: a regulation in place to to make things more clear.
Speaker 1: Is it investors that want to have sustainable companies they
Speaker 1: can credibly call sustainable that they can invest in, or
Speaker 1: is it companies that want appear attractive to potential investors.
Speaker 1: I think this agenda was first pushed in retail investors
Speaker 1: and investors like us who are investing in pensions, who
Speaker 1: really wanted to know what is sustainable or not so
Speaker 1: pension funds. Who's going to be around in forty years? Right? Yeah,
Speaker 1: exactly and fifties About as far as any of us
Speaker 1: can look at right now. Well, unless you're China then
Speaker 1: it's twenty sixty, so forty years there. So it's been
Speaker 1: asked by investors because you want to have more transparency
Speaker 1: around sustainable statements, but it's been mostly pushed by regulators,
Speaker 1: like there is currently a consortium between the European Central
Speaker 1: Bank with Kristin Nagad and the European Commission with Lan.
Speaker 1: They're really pushing the climate agenda. I'm not sure it
Speaker 1: would have gone as quick if they were not both
Speaker 1: leading the European Commission and the European Central Banks. Let's
Speaker 1: be honest, okay, And who does it benefit most? So
Speaker 1: does it benefit the regulators from having the system in place,
Speaker 1: or investors or who it benefits? First retail investor. It
Speaker 1: benefits investors like us, not institutional investors, because we understand
Speaker 1: where we're putting our money. We understand there is real transparency,
Speaker 1: real accountability. We can't just claim to be sustainable. We
Speaker 1: can't just do climate pledges and not have something that
Speaker 1: follows really those statements. So it benefits us, but it
Speaker 1: benefits everyone overall. Because it was really interesting talking with
Speaker 1: the technical expert group and the platform, because I worked
Speaker 1: with them on this report. They were like, achieving carbon
Speaker 1: neutrality by is not going to be an easy task,
Speaker 1: and we need to find a way, a pathway to
Speaker 1: do that. And this is why we need to be
Speaker 1: really clear as the European Union, where we want money
Speaker 1: to go to achieve that goal. And this is who
Speaker 1: it's benefiting. So it's basically benefiting us in the future
Speaker 1: generations as well because finance should be used as a
Speaker 1: tool to achieve those goals. This is who it's benefiting,
Speaker 1: and it's bringing clarity to the market. So even if
Speaker 1: at the moment everyone is complaining about the fact that
Speaker 1: the taxonomy reporting will be a tough one to implement,
Speaker 1: this is why people are really complaining about it. It's
Speaker 1: benefiting all of us. Is there a dark side though,
Speaker 1: So let's let's get into that a little bit. So
Speaker 1: I would love, I would love to believe that it's
Speaker 1: benefiting all of us. So you say it's not easy,
Speaker 1: it's going to be tough to implement, the goals are
Speaker 1: super ambitious. What is the biggest frustration and all of this,
Speaker 1: and I guess I would couple that with like, is
Speaker 1: there a loophole? You know, is there a game stop?
Speaker 1: Style loophole that that could blow this all up. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm kind of biased because I think it's a great standard,
Speaker 1: so I need to say it out like before I
Speaker 1: answer out of like intellectual injury. The biggest frustration I
Speaker 1: hear about the taxonomy is first, it's gonna be really
Speaker 1: tough to implement because the asset managers who are claiming
Speaker 1: that they have sustainable funds, they'll have to report that
Speaker 1: data even if they are holding global funds with like
Speaker 1: thousands of names. And the small asset managers, which sometimes
Speaker 1: are really thematic investment manager, so you know, those impact
Speaker 1: funds that we've known forever, they will not necessarily have
Speaker 1: the financial ability to gather this data and to implement
Speaker 1: the taxonomy is going to be tough for them. The
Speaker 1: reason why the European Union decided also to force asset
Speaker 1: manager to disclose that data is because so that they
Speaker 1: can push company to disclose that data. I think that
Speaker 1: by putting asset manager under the mandatory disclosure, they'll push
Speaker 1: companies to do it, and I think they're right, but
Speaker 1: this is one of the main frustration. Second frustration is
Speaker 1: around the Manichean vision of the taxonomy. You're either green
Speaker 1: or you're not. And also to prove your grain, you
Speaker 1: have several step to photo. We're not going to go
Speaker 1: into the details of that today in this webinar, but
Speaker 1: you have several step and several tests to to do
Speaker 1: on your economic activity to prove that it's green. So
Speaker 1: it's going to be really difficult to perform. What the
Speaker 1: European Commission is answering to that is that, well, the
Speaker 1: data is gonna buy the iteration in and year after
Speaker 1: year the data is going to be better and we
Speaker 1: need to do it. So you just gotta get started
Speaker 1: regardless exactly. So there's all these other reporting frameworks you
Speaker 1: mentioned that at the top of the show, the TCFD
Speaker 1: sasby if and when the EU Taxonomy comes into play
Speaker 1: and it's successful, what happens to those Do they keep
Speaker 1: going or do they ride often in the sunset or what? Yes,
Speaker 1: we will still need some of those reporting frameworks. The
Speaker 1: taxonomy is answering some of the question, but as we saw,
Speaker 1: is very binary and the same way that you may
Speaker 1: want to report on your environmental social performance as a whole.
Speaker 1: There's going to be other regulation in the European Union
Speaker 1: because actually the taxonomy is part of a bigger group
Speaker 1: of regulations, and under the taxonomy you may rely on
Speaker 1: other reporting standards to get your data or to perform
Speaker 1: your taxonomy assessment. For instance, under the taxonomy, to prove
Speaker 1: your central contribution to climate change adaptation, you need to
Speaker 1: perform a physical climate risk materiality assessment, So you need
Speaker 1: to see how much you would be impacted by physical
Speaker 1: climate risk, and we knew that TCFD is a very
Speaker 1: robust framework to assess that. Therefore, even the Technical Expert
Speaker 1: Group the platform or promoting TCFD or at least listing
Speaker 1: it within the different framework of reporting that could be
Speaker 1: useful for your own taxonomy assessment for instance. So we're
Speaker 1: not to the finish line yet, it's not January, and
Speaker 1: between now and then and maybe beyond my what is
Speaker 1: it that you want to know? And how do you
Speaker 1: think this is all going to turn out? Is it
Speaker 1: going to end in tears or is it going to
Speaker 1: be something that's going to bring us to some sort
Speaker 1: of sustainable nirvana. I'm being optimistic. I think that the
Speaker 1: Taxonomy is really trying to finally cut through all the
Speaker 1: greenwashing threat we've been seeing over the past few years.
Speaker 1: Sustainable investment is gaining an incredible momentum. This year has
Speaker 1: shown record high inflows into environmentally social funds. We've see
Speaker 1: a lot of interest. When I started my career at Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: I was told that sustainable finance was something for millennials
Speaker 1: and women. And I think it's yeah, it was. It's
Speaker 1: growing in interest, it's reaching everyone. The sustainable finance market
Speaker 1: is no more a niche market. It's it's really being
Speaker 1: integrated in in in finance as a whole. And I
Speaker 1: think that what the taxonomy will also achieve is that
Speaker 1: it's going to raise awareness and it's going to bring
Speaker 1: that momentum from just being a trend to become something
Speaker 1: that is part of our social contract as the European
Speaker 1: Union A countries saying that when I'm investing, I should
Speaker 1: not only care about the financial aspect of my investment,
Speaker 1: but I also should also care about the environmental and
Speaker 1: social aspect of my investment. Because the technical what used
Speaker 1: to be the technical expert groups of the platform Unstainable Finance,
Speaker 1: is now working on a social taxonomy as well. The
Speaker 1: thing that could be difficult is that how do we
Speaker 1: achieve a fair transition. So if the taxonomy is shedding
Speaker 1: some lights on some green sectors, what do we do
Speaker 1: about all the other sectors that employ thousands of people?
Speaker 1: And I think that it can end up in tears
Speaker 1: if we do not take into account that we're currently
Speaker 1: transitioning and that we need to support that as well,
Speaker 1: which is where I think that SDGs fit in sustainable
Speaker 1: development goals and bringing everyone along with us well. On
Speaker 1: that note, Maya will have to have you back in
Speaker 1: a year to see where we got on with all
Speaker 1: of this. When everything gets implemented, I'm sure it's going
Speaker 1: to be a busy year for a number of reasons,
Speaker 1: but definitely a space to watch. Thank you for joining
Speaker 1: us today. Thank you. Today's episode of Switched On was
Speaker 1: edited by Rex Warner of Grace Stoke Media. Bloomberg an
Speaker 1: e F is a service provided by Bloomberg Finance LP
Speaker 1: and its affiliates. This recording does not constitute, nor it
Speaker 1: should it be construed as investment advice, investment recommendations, or
Speaker 1: recommendation as to an investment or other strategy. Bloomberg an
Speaker 1: e F should not be considered as information sufficient upon
Speaker 1: which to base an investment decision. Neither Bloomberg Finance LP
Speaker 1: nor any of its affiliates, makes any representation or warranty
Speaker 1: as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained
Speaker 1: in this recording, and any liability as a result of
Speaker 1: this recording. Did expressly disclaimed