Speaker 1: This is Tom Rowland's Reese and you're listening to Switched
Speaker 1: on the podcast brought to you by BNF, and today
Speaker 1: we're here to talk about sustainable finance policy. Having spent
Speaker 1: years in development. In February of this year, the European
Speaker 1: Union took an act to its sustainable reporting regulations, in
Speaker 1: the process limiting investors access to climate data and potentially
Speaker 1: limiting their ability to push capital towards the energy transition.
Speaker 1: Widely considered the leader for sustainable finance policy, the watering
Speaker 1: down of these key regulations has thrown the EU's position
Speaker 1: into question. Part of the pressure behind the shift has
Speaker 1: been concerned over competitiveness, exacerbated by the new Trump administration
Speaker 1: in the United States, which has continued to take aim
Speaker 1: at climate regulations. But as Europe stumbles, could a new
Speaker 1: leader be found in the form of the Asia Pacific Region,
Speaker 1: which during the second half of twenty twenty four introduced
Speaker 1: twenty one new sustainable finance policies. To discuss this and more, today,
Speaker 1: am joined by b and EF sustainable finance analysts Maya
Speaker 1: Messenger and Jamison McLennan, who share findings from their recently
Speaker 1: released research notes titled EU weaken sustainable leadership with rule
Speaker 1: rollback and Sustainable Finance Marketing Outlook one twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: which B and EF clients can find. BNF go on
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg terminal or on BNF dot com. All right,
Speaker 1: let's get to talking about sustainable finance policy.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the podcast, Meyer, thank you, thank you Don
Speaker 2: for having.
Speaker 1: Me, and welcome Jameson.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thanks great to be here.
Speaker 1: When we last spoke about sustainable finance policy on the
Speaker 1: Switched On podcast, Europe was leading the way. Can you
Speaker 1: remind everyone why we were saying that and whether the
Speaker 1: policies and frameworks that were behind that are still on course.
Speaker 3: So that you has three significant sustainable of finance reporting policies.
Speaker 3: The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, which requires companies to report
Speaker 3: at a range of environmental social sustainability metrics, The Corporate
Speaker 3: Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which requires companies to report on
Speaker 3: the sustainability impacts of their value chain. And the EU Taxonomy,
Speaker 3: which works as effectively a classification systems for which economic
Speaker 3: activities are considered green within the European Union.
Speaker 1: So how often do they have to report this and
Speaker 1: who do they have to report it to.
Speaker 3: So the reporting timelines vary between the regulations, but they're
Speaker 3: typically reporting to each of the specific governments within the
Speaker 3: European Union that have transposed these regulations into their national law.
Speaker 3: These three sort of significant sustainability reporting regulations have been
Speaker 3: weakened over the past couple months. So in February February
Speaker 3: twenty six, twenty twenty five, the European Union passed their
Speaker 3: Sustainability onminnion bus which effectively work to limit the scope
Speaker 3: of some of this reporting regulation by reducing the number
Speaker 3: of companies that are required to report. For example, under
Speaker 3: the CSRD, under the original draft, any company with more
Speaker 3: than two hundred and fifty employees within the European Union
Speaker 3: would have to report on a range of sustain nobility metrics.
Speaker 3: They've now bumped up that requirement so companies with more
Speaker 3: than a thousand employees only have to report, So they've
Speaker 3: limited that scope by around eighty percent.
Speaker 1: There's just a couple of kind of clarification questions I
Speaker 1: have on all of this, because so from what I understand,
Speaker 1: the way it works is the EU has a directive
Speaker 1: and then national governments transposed that directive into their own laws.
Speaker 1: Is there anything to stop national governments from saying, actually,
Speaker 1: we like these rules the way that they were or
Speaker 1: does this change in the directive require them all to
Speaker 1: scale back their requirements?
Speaker 3: It requires them all to scale back their requirements. The
Speaker 3: European Commission has gone in and edited the specific directives
Speaker 3: for the CSOD and the cs Triple D, and so
Speaker 3: member states will have to go back and retranspose the
Speaker 3: new regulation.
Speaker 1: So it's not just it's no longer pushing national governments
Speaker 1: to put in place a law, it's actually preventing them
Speaker 1: from doing so if they wanted to.
Speaker 2: The utexonomy also is a regulation, so it's going to
Speaker 2: be like implemented and supervised at the European level. The
Speaker 2: two others are there, but I think they can still
Speaker 2: like amend. There is a scale back, so it means
Speaker 2: that when a directive is then implemented at national level,
Speaker 2: members that have some flexibility with regards to the implementation.
Speaker 2: But indeed they could strengthen the scope. I don't think
Speaker 2: we're going to see it because a lot of this
Speaker 2: has happened because of a push from member states to
Speaker 2: basically scale back on these directives and regulations. So I
Speaker 2: don't think we're going to say so.
Speaker 1: My question is kind of moot in a way that
Speaker 1: there isn't a government that wants to go further than
Speaker 1: the eregulations.
Speaker 2: I mean, to our knowledge, not really. Actually, just today
Speaker 2: Member states have agreed to stop the clock rule on
Speaker 2: the omnibus, So it means that basically one of the
Speaker 2: amendments on these directives was to delay their implementation for
Speaker 2: the ces or the end of cs repody in particular,
Speaker 2: and members they have just voted on that. So it
Speaker 2: feels that there is still a consensus around this topic.
Speaker 2: There is not like a one key country that is
Speaker 2: being particularly like vocal about not scaling back these policy
Speaker 2: and let's just be clear also about something is that
Speaker 2: the CSRD, the CES reply and the U Taxonomy had
Speaker 2: been passed, and the CSRD and the U Taxonomy they
Speaker 2: were already reporting happening against them. It's been two years.
Speaker 2: That two years, yeah, two years for the taxonomy, and
Speaker 2: this year is the first reporting. The reporting has been
Speaker 2: phased in depending on the size of the company, so
Speaker 2: the biggest companies have started reporting against the CSRD from
Speaker 2: this year onwards. That being said, while it may change
Speaker 2: for the taxonomy, most of the company that have started
Speaker 2: reporting this year on the CSRD will have to report
Speaker 2: in the future, but it might be a question of
Speaker 2: they might have to report on less indicators.
Speaker 1: So I mean this kind of leads to the next question.
Speaker 1: You know, as you say that, like, the EU was
Speaker 1: one place two years ago and two years later it's
Speaker 1: changed tack and it seems to be a fairly universal
Speaker 1: feeling around it. So what led to this rollback?
Speaker 2: There have been criticisms around sustainable finance regulatory agenda in
Speaker 2: the you being overly burdensome, So that was coming from companies,
Speaker 2: certain companies, but there also has been an important report
Speaker 2: in the in the EU, which is the More Dog
Speaker 2: Drugs Report on competitiveness of companies how to bring back
Speaker 2: competitiveness from companies in the EU, and one of his
Speaker 2: key advice to European regulators was to scale down the
Speaker 2: sustainable finance regulatory agenda. In particular, these regulations were targeting
Speaker 2: for the first time small and medium enterprises, so SMEs
Speaker 2: there were also having a big extra territorial impact, so
Speaker 2: a lot of like non EU companies that were trading
Speaker 2: in the EU or having some operations in you were
Speaker 2: falling in scope for it. So this has all shifted
Speaker 2: the you to rethink this rollback, and it feels like
Speaker 2: it feels like there is a rollback on sustainable both
Speaker 2: finance policy because also this compliance was I always make
Speaker 2: this joke, but it's also a geeky one, but it's
Speaker 2: always like really everything everywhere or at once, because they
Speaker 2: were targeting everyone at the same time, some policies were
Speaker 2: coming into places that were not really finished, which is
Speaker 2: the case of the CSRD. The taxonomy also has been messy,
Speaker 2: so I think it was it was quite expensive for
Speaker 2: companies to implement it, but it's also it feels like
Speaker 2: a shifting strategy. So the same day that the EU
Speaker 2: has published this omnibus regulation, its proposal to scale back everything,
Speaker 2: they've also published a Clean Industrial Deal, which basically brings
Speaker 2: more subsidies to the energy transition, reassert greenhouse gas emission reduction,
Speaker 2: stuff like that. So it feels like it's almost they
Speaker 2: moved away from a stick regulation to introduce carrot regulations
Speaker 2: and move away from reporting compliance to basically creating real
Speaker 2: economy incentives. So it's almost like a change in philosophical approach,
Speaker 2: like political approach.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean you could also term it as a
Speaker 1: change from private sector led transition to public sector led transition.
Speaker 2: True.
Speaker 3: I'd also just add that this is all happening in
Speaker 3: the context of the pushback against sustainability reporting in the
Speaker 3: US as well. And so we've seen the Securities and
Speaker 3: Exchange Commissions sustainability of reporting regulation get rolled back. You've
Speaker 3: seen the Trump administration take a pretty aggressive stance actually
Speaker 3: against CSRD and cs triple D, and so this this
Speaker 3: rollback is kind of happening in context of that as well.
Speaker 3: And it also brings into a question about European companies
Speaker 3: competing against maybe American companies that aren't held to the
Speaker 3: same reporting standard as well.
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, this was kind of going to
Speaker 1: be my next question, and you've kind of already answered
Speaker 1: it to some extent. But apart from it, you know,
Speaker 1: the sort of the optics of it. The US has
Speaker 1: a new administration, it's a lot less friendly towards things
Speaker 1: we would broadly term ESG. You kind of mentioned what
Speaker 1: sound like they actually have leverage on what the EU does.
Speaker 1: What can you just explain a little bit more what
Speaker 1: you mean there.
Speaker 3: I don't know if it's specifically leverage, but more a
Speaker 3: relative competitive advantage potentially if the American companies aren't required
Speaker 3: to report this range of sustainability metrics, whereas European companies
Speaker 3: maybe are, and so European companies may be undercut by
Speaker 3: by businesses not just in the US as well. I
Speaker 3: think that's part of goes back to the original competitiveness
Speaker 3: concerns that stems from the DRAG Report.
Speaker 1: A question I have around this competitiveness concern is because
Speaker 1: you know, we hear it BNF, we look at the
Speaker 1: energy transition and in most areas we say it's a
Speaker 1: competitive advantage to be more sustainable in various ways, you know,
Speaker 1: in mitigating risk for the future. Is it that that
Speaker 1: is just simply wrong at this moment in time or
Speaker 1: is it literally the regulatory burden that was on these
Speaker 1: companies was the issue, Like just the amount they had
Speaker 1: to invest in doing the paperwork, Like what is the
Speaker 1: thinking behind it being less competitive having this requirement on you?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so we definitely it's definitely more of a regulatory
Speaker 3: burden rather than sustainability being uncompetitive. In some cases, these
Speaker 3: companies under the CSRD would be required to report over
Speaker 3: one thousand data points, which for smaller medium enterprise can
Speaker 3: be incredibly overwhelming. And our view on the Sustainable Finance
Speaker 3: team at PNF is that rather than potentially limiting the
Speaker 3: scope of companies that are required to report under these regulations,
Speaker 3: which is what has happened, the change in regulations could
Speaker 3: have focused on limiting the number of metrics that are
Speaker 3: required to report to just the key ones that investors.
Speaker 1: Are much so it is like maybe over complex.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yes, and I think like the backlash we're seeing
Speaker 2: this regulatory push and everything. I completely agree with everything
Speaker 2: Jameson is saying. But on top of this, and I
Speaker 2: think we agree with Jameson on that is like there
Speaker 2: is going to be, in any case, a heightened urge
Speaker 2: from companies to prove that the sustainability choices that they
Speaker 2: make companies and financial institutions are being financially profitable, that
Speaker 2: they are being made for the competitiveness of the business.
Speaker 2: And in particular in the US, I think there's going
Speaker 2: to be more and more of an urge to prove
Speaker 2: that sustainability is actually the good financial decision for companies.
Speaker 2: And that's probably also why we're seeing this situation where
Speaker 2: the US saying, Okay, you know what, we're moving away
Speaker 2: from reporting, and we were talking to corporations that hired
Speaker 2: or now use dozens and dozens of people just to
Speaker 2: do a CSRD report, for instance, and to say, Okay,
Speaker 2: maybe this is money that could go to actually investing
Speaker 2: in the energy transition or developing the technology we need
Speaker 2: for it. And so I think that's why we're seeing
Speaker 2: this shift on the U side. On the US side,
Speaker 2: there is still a lot to be discussed. We're probably
Speaker 2: not the best ones to answer the question around like
Speaker 2: subsidies to clean energy and the rest of these technologies.
Speaker 2: But on the sustainable finance front, I think also one
Speaker 2: of the things is that this necessity to prove profitability
Speaker 2: and competitiveness is going to become extremely serious in the
Speaker 2: coming years.
Speaker 1: So I want to move on to talking about what
Speaker 1: impact this might have on investment. And I'm going to
Speaker 1: use an analogy here. So I'm vegan, and so when
Speaker 1: you're vegan, you sometimes go into a restaurant or into
Speaker 1: the grocery store and there's little v signs that tell
Speaker 1: you that there are things that are good for you,
Speaker 1: and you don't have to do the work to figure
Speaker 1: out whether something is you know, legit for you to
Speaker 1: invest your veganism in and sometimes that isn't there, and
Speaker 1: then you have to, like if you're in the grocery store,
Speaker 1: like read the list of ingredients, or if you're in
Speaker 1: a restaurant, you have to ask lots of annoying questions.
Speaker 1: So the existence of the little green VS. The impact
Speaker 1: of it is it shifts the emphasis on you having
Speaker 1: to do the homework to the providers of the food
Speaker 1: to do the homework. Now, there isn't a government requirement
Speaker 1: for little vs. Everywhere, and there are actually third party
Speaker 1: organizations that have created these frameworks. The reason't they use
Speaker 1: this analogy is this, This hasn't changed whether or not
Speaker 1: I'm going to be vegan, but it certainly streamlines my veganism.
Speaker 1: So I hope the analogy where I'm going with this
Speaker 1: is clear is some of these requirements is like a
Speaker 1: requirement for the equivalent of a little V next to
Speaker 1: certain companies, to certain investments, for investors that have an
Speaker 1: appetite to put money into green causes. So I guess
Speaker 1: a couple of questions, is it going to actually change
Speaker 1: the appetite for this investment or is it just going
Speaker 1: to make it a little bit harder and put the
Speaker 1: onus onto the burden of the work on the investors.
Speaker 1: And then second question is their scope for as is
Speaker 1: the case with vegan and vegetarian labels, that actually there's
Speaker 1: third parties that might come in and have their own assessments,
Speaker 1: you know, whether it's NGOs or someone else.
Speaker 3: I think the goal with these sustainability reporting policies kind
Speaker 3: of what you're kind of saying. I think it helps
Speaker 3: to investors streamline their decisions. It provides a raft of
Speaker 3: standardized data points that they can specifically point to and
Speaker 3: evaluate for their sustainability and climate performance. I do think
Speaker 3: think the reporting does lower barriers to entry for investors
Speaker 3: that may have interesting sustainability or some sort of sustainability
Speaker 3: concerns without having the resources to actually go through and
Speaker 3: perform this due diligence themselves. There's forms of voluntary reporting
Speaker 3: and third party reporting, but the fact that it's coming
Speaker 3: from sort of government regulation side, I think ensures that
Speaker 3: kind of the universe is as standardized as possible.
Speaker 2: As well, I agree with jameson there is that angle
Speaker 2: the standardized way, the fact is like government stabled and
Speaker 2: all of that. But I would want to add on
Speaker 2: two points. Indeed, We don't think that slashing down reporting
Speaker 2: will re question the whole investment in clean energy and
Speaker 2: in the transition. I agree with everything Jameson has said,
Speaker 2: but indeed remove the barrier to entry to have these
Speaker 2: regulations and not having them might make it more difficult.
Speaker 2: That being said, I think that there are some indicators
Speaker 2: that are becoming increasingly necessary to make the right decision.
Speaker 2: And in particular, the taxonomy was answering the question of, Okay,
Speaker 2: how much a company is investing in the transition by
Speaker 2: reporting green capex, how much the company has already transitioned
Speaker 2: to low carbon economy by looking at the percentage of
Speaker 2: green revenues. These are key indicators that also force companies
Speaker 2: to disclose revenue segmentation, that are key to any decision maker,
Speaker 2: whether you are an impact investment fund, an ESG fund,
Speaker 2: which is a fund that takes into account environmental, social
Speaker 2: and governance factors, or just a random fund that tries
Speaker 2: to mitigate their explosure to climate risk. And instead of
Speaker 2: reworking the taxonomy, which is heavily flowed because it's a
Speaker 2: massive it's a massive piece of work and I know
Speaker 2: because I've worked on it in the past, instead of
Speaker 2: reworking it, aligning it with accounting standard. The EU has
Speaker 2: decided to just cut down the number of companies that
Speaker 2: are reporting against it and make it voluntary, and we
Speaker 2: know that voluntary taxonomy most companies don't report against them,
Speaker 2: so that could actually impact beyond the investment to clean energy,
Speaker 2: at least the capacity from investors and lenders to mitigate
Speaker 2: their exposure to climate risk. And the second thing is
Speaker 2: Jamison has talked about the anti ESG backlash we're seeing
Speaker 2: in the US through the lens of regulation, and amongst
Speaker 2: all the anti ESG lows we're seeing at US state level,
Speaker 2: we are seeing a lot of boycott laws or laws
Speaker 2: and anti esglows that boycott prevents certain financial transitions from
Speaker 2: making business in a certain state because they are too
Speaker 2: heavily involved in sustainability. And antire ESG to take into
Speaker 2: account any factor that is not pecuniary, so it needs
Speaker 2: a factor that is not financially material in their decision
Speaker 2: making process. This can affect not the energy transition that
Speaker 2: is already profitable, not the wind, the solar, the evs.
Speaker 2: It's going to affect the clean technology that are not
Speaker 2: necessarily financially profitable, but that still people want to see
Speaker 2: in their investment fund if they are interested in sustainability,
Speaker 2: so carbon capture and storage, hydrogen investment, these emerging technologies.
Speaker 2: So in this sense, I think we really need to
Speaker 2: nuance this. In this sense, I completely agree with Jameson's point,
Speaker 2: and I would add on top of this, So revamping
Speaker 2: the EU taxonomy was a necessity because it was burdensome,
Speaker 2: but it could have been done differently to drive a
Speaker 2: better impact. Second one is the nuance that we need
Speaker 2: to see in the US because it might dempen a
Speaker 2: certain sort of investment, but not all of them, and
Speaker 2: also not the whole energy transition investment is at stake
Speaker 2: just because of this backlash, I.
Speaker 1: Really want to understand, you know, because I just want
Speaker 1: to pick up on one thing you said, which was
Speaker 1: that now companies aren't getting the information they actually need,
Speaker 1: which going back to my metaphor about veganism, it's not
Speaker 1: just that the little v's are being taken away. Are
Speaker 1: you saying that actually the ingredient list on the back
Speaker 1: of the packet is getting taken away? Is that even
Speaker 1: if companies want to invest the effort to up they
Speaker 1: actually don't have the information they need.
Speaker 2: Well in the EU right now, there's going to be so,
Speaker 2: as I said today, one of the amendment has gone
Speaker 2: through the Council because you know, like the EU legislative
Speaker 2: process is very complicated. Even after like five or six
Speaker 2: years in this just doing research about it, it's still
Speaker 2: quite complicated to me. But basically all these amendments so
Speaker 2: that omnibus package will have to go through Council and Parliament.
Speaker 2: One of the amendment, which was to delay reporting, has
Speaker 2: gone through Council already today, so it has to go
Speaker 2: through Parliament. Is going to go through Parliament on the
Speaker 2: first of April. There has been like urge to get
Speaker 2: this through the delay bit because otherwise some companies were
Speaker 2: well in scope as early as next year for reporting,
Speaker 2: and you know you don't prepare reporting on in December
Speaker 2: or April. So that's the first thing. The other thing
Speaker 2: is there is intense consultation with a lot of like
Speaker 2: industrial societies representing civilians, companies and stuff like that, which
Speaker 2: is one of the big criticism that has been made
Speaker 2: to the EU, which is the fact that it built
Speaker 2: all these regulation a bit too much behind closed doors
Speaker 2: rather than involving everyone. So that might help as well.
Speaker 2: And then I think Tom, there could be questions around
Speaker 2: will this shift and strategy continue, you know, like maybe
Speaker 2: we'll see a scale back on regulatory front around disclosure,
Speaker 2: but we might see more incentives around real economy incentives
Speaker 2: and investing in all of that and strengthening being more
Speaker 2: like a closer to the economy rather than just around
Speaker 2: the reporting.
Speaker 1: Got it. So, if the EU isn't going to be
Speaker 1: taking the same leadership role on this front that it
Speaker 1: has done in the past, does that create an opportunity
Speaker 1: for another region of the world or another country to
Speaker 1: step up and seize the initiative.
Speaker 3: The EU putting the brakes on some of it sustainability
Speaker 3: reporting regulation. There's a concern here that it pulls momentum
Speaker 3: from sustainability reporting regular globally. CS Triple D is still
Speaker 3: the first of its kind in terms of regulation, and
Speaker 3: we don't really see a comparable version globally yet. However,
Speaker 3: as they potentially step back, we start to see regulation
Speaker 3: in Asia Pacific region, specifically in China as well, start
Speaker 3: to become closer to comparable to the EU's regulatory framework.
Speaker 3: With twenty one sustainable finance policy developments in the second
Speaker 3: half of twenty twenty four, and it was definitely the
Speaker 3: busiest region globally, so we're starting to see some strong
Speaker 3: policy growth there as well. I'd also point to Brazil
Speaker 3: and the UK are both looking to potentially develop a
Speaker 3: mandatory taxonomy after the EU's mandatory taxonomy, and if the
Speaker 3: EU continues to weaken or weakens there reporting against their taxonomy,
Speaker 3: either of these markets might end up leading in that sense.
Speaker 1: What is the outlook overall? I mean, we've seen scaling
Speaker 1: back in the EU, We've seen progress maybe happening in Asia,
Speaker 1: the UK and Brazil, as you've just mentioned, maybe moving
Speaker 1: forward with certain things as a bit of a question
Speaker 1: of where leadership will come from. But what is the
Speaker 1: future in your view and say the next five years
Speaker 1: or so of this type of framework for supporting investment
Speaker 1: in the energy transition.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean the first thing to say is that
Speaker 2: if we had been asked this question just six months ago,
Speaker 2: we would have never predicted the omnibus. The EU had
Speaker 2: spent so much money, effort time into developing the Sustainable
Speaker 2: Finance Agenda, and it feels that they were convinced they
Speaker 2: were fighting the right fight. So I think it's that's
Speaker 2: one of the things that financial institutions and companies are
Speaker 2: effectively criticizing and being vocal about is to say, unfortunately,
Speaker 2: the policy agenda is too uncertain, too inconsistent. They need
Speaker 2: clearer guidance, clearer roadmaps about what's going to happen in
Speaker 2: the coming years. Because companies hire sustainability teams to do
Speaker 2: the reporting and then get told that actually they might
Speaker 2: not even have to do it in the future. They
Speaker 2: get asked for reporting, and then investors say that it
Speaker 2: is not necessarily what they want, they want something else.
Speaker 2: So I think clarity is going to be really important
Speaker 2: in the coming years, like having these clear agenda both
Speaker 2: in EMEA, Europe and APEC. And the second thing is
Speaker 2: we haven't tooked at all about the International Sustainability Standards Board,
Speaker 2: the iss B framework, and we think that it's going
Speaker 2: to be one of the key framework that's going to
Speaker 2: impose itself around the globe.
Speaker 3: I'd agree with everything that you've said so far. I
Speaker 3: will just add a little bit of the US perspective
Speaker 3: and that with the Trump administration, we've started to see
Speaker 3: some more antiesg policies being passed at the state level
Speaker 3: and federal level. Sustainability reporting, either through the SEC rules
Speaker 3: or the adoption of the International Sustainability Standards Board standards
Speaker 3: are not particularly likely as well. We do see some
Speaker 3: positive state developments, but while we've unfortunately seen a bit
Speaker 3: of a rollback in the EU, the US is definitely
Speaker 3: very far behind on the sustainability of reporting front.
Speaker 1: Well, one thing I was going to ask is you know,
Speaker 1: to your point that you has invested so much time
Speaker 1: and effort into this and then supposedly rolled it back.
Speaker 1: Is there maybe an argument that they're just putting it
Speaker 1: on ice for now and that all of that work
Speaker 1: and everything that has been learned is still there ready
Speaker 1: to be taken back off the shelf.
Speaker 2: That's an amazing question, thank you. Yeah. No, I think
Speaker 2: it's a really good question because I think they are
Speaker 2: hoping that it might be picked up as a voluntary standard.
Speaker 2: So they might think that because it's the more companies
Speaker 2: are going to use it, or that it may influence
Speaker 2: other regions in the world and stuff like that. That
Speaker 2: being said, I still think that there is a need
Speaker 2: for a revamp of some of these regulations. Jameson explained it.
Speaker 2: The CSRD requires with a caveat, you need to prove
Speaker 2: that it's fine, like its material to your business and whatever.
Speaker 2: But like it lists on two hundred indicators quantitative and qualitative.
Speaker 2: This is too much. This is too many. And the
Speaker 2: taxonomy is also a lot of work to do a
Speaker 2: taxonomy reporting. So there could be work to be done
Speaker 2: on the essence of these laws. And I'm not saying
Speaker 2: this as the x filos of her that I was,
Speaker 2: but like there is something to be done about the
Speaker 2: core of these policies and maybe they could use it
Speaker 2: in the future. Maybe it's just a question of timing.
Speaker 1: Maybe to borrow from your language, Maya. Maybe it's not adieux,
Speaker 1: but it's au revoir.
Speaker 2: Oh yes, yes, exactly. Maybe it's just amaya.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us today.
Speaker 2: Thanks Domin, thanks for allowing us to bring a lot
Speaker 2: of nuance to this topic.
Speaker 1: And Jamison, thank you also. Thanks.
Speaker 3: There is great to be here.
Speaker 2: Today's episode of Switched On was produced by cam Gray
Speaker 2: with production assistance from Kamala Shelling.
Speaker 1: Bloomber NIF is a service provided by Bloomberg Finance LP
Speaker 1: and its affiliates. This recording does not constitute, nor should
Speaker 1: it be construed as investment advice investment recommendations, or a
Speaker 1: recommendation as to an investment or other strategy.
Speaker 2: Bloomberg aniff should not be considered as information sufficient upon
Speaker 2: which to base an investment decision. Neither Bloomberg Finance LP
Speaker 2: Nor any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty
Speaker 2: as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained
Speaker 2: in this recording, and any liability as a result of
Speaker 2: this recording is expressly disclaimed