The Climate Conundrum - The Risky Road Ahead

[Music] um so sitting um next to me Raa managing director of uh Howen Guardian Insurance Brokers based here in the Emirates uh board member of the Emirates Insurance Foundation British Chamber of Commerce in Abu Dhabi amongst other things part of the global 200 women power leaders announced by white page uh leadership conclave in 2024 and someone who I know is a passionate supporter of uh changes within the insurance Market to address climate change issues and also changes within the small to medium Enterprise Market as well um or ban a business term to do that uh James uh who sits next to her is a partner of um clear gotle um he practices in a f in his practice focuses on dispute uh resolution investigations and enforcement uh he's got a lot of experience in class action matters a lot of experience in investigation Reg Tre and law enforcement matters um and uh as we'll hear is also involved in ESG litigation particularly in the compensatory um uh space um as well mangela um is one of the entrepreneurs of the group The Entrepreneur of the group uh she um is a founder of sustainability Assurance uh sustainability insurance company or fintech company worldwide generation founded that in 2016 she's put into place now um uh a another model called g17 Eco in 2017 launched at the end of um 2020 with contributions from over 300 um expert contributors um to support basically um uh a green development and green initiatives um uh at at a um corporate level and Thomas um our dark master um founder um and uh adviser now to navalon um a litigation financer um is actually one of the most interesting people I've had a discussion with in this subject area for many many many years um he's going to talk to us about what are the motivations of litigation funders in this area you'll actually be surprised to find that they're not merely ambulance Chasers um as was described um there is there is um an incentive on their part to actually make positive and real change in this area and we'll be hearing um about that and how that's going to be how that's going to be achieved so if I can start um and and I've asked everyone to actually have their microphones kept on for this discussion um so that you can all um in an afternoon session when we're moving up uh to that point where we all need to stretch leagues have an argument will you need to have an argument or a disagreement will you need to have one um James if we can go immediately to the um to the litigation space uh when I spoke here 18 months ago uh the Royal Dutch Shell decision in the Netherlands District Court was still new law um it had found in fact that that that company was in breach of Dutch law in not actually putting into place um actionable targets to reduce its Global admissions over time to numbers um that were going to Accord with the Netherlands commitment under the Paris agreement and I think the week before we started there was this proclimate optimism in the air because that had then been translated into a couple of um derivative director Duty suits one filed in England against shell another one filed against toti energies in France has that proclimate optimism played out in the last 18 months firstly thanks a lot for the question can I be heard yeah and thank you to Linda and the organizers for inviting me along to talk on this topic I think it's uh I think the world's moved on quite a lot in those 18 months dkan I mean people in the room I think will know that the the Dutch Court appeal reversed the first instance decision in the world dut shell case finding that although shell did owe obligations to reduce its emissions they couldn't be Quantified and ordered to meet a particular reductions Target over a particular period and then in the UK the director's Duty claim against the shell directors didn't really get past the starting blocks the claim was uh brought a derivitive action which needed the Court's permission to continue and um client Earth the NGO that brought the claim didn't succeed in demonstrating that there was enough of a case to proceed past the starting blocks the court essentially said that there were no hard-edged climate obligations that could be litigated and investigated in the court process and put a lot of emphasis on director's autonomy and the scope of reasonable director decision making what I would say though is that although both of those claims went um perhaps in favor of the corporates and against the activists who bought the claims they have caused companies and investors to sit up and take note in this area uh we've had a number of clients and inquirers at our firm U investors who've had directors on boards for example coming to say well how do we deal with these issues are our directors at risk what questions they need to be thinking about when they're dealing with climate issues at board level so although the claims I think have not gone in proclimate way at the litigation stage they have achieved the objective of drawing attention to the issues building the discourse and crucially having investors shareholders directors focus on the area and on their responsibilities and liabilities there's something that sorry there's something that the Central Bank of UAE is active on where they have released a draft on the risk the operation risk regulation to uh hold the board accountable for climate disclosures for disclosures in general but climate in specific it's a draft so far so hoping that will be out in the market very soon right well James you just touched on the idea that one thing that was missing from that as far as the judge that was considering whether to wave it through um was the lack of a framework a national framework within uh within uh England um and Wales the court in which that case was considered um and indeed that was really one of the fundamental issues in the um Netherlands court of appeal just last month reversing also the Royal dut shell decision over there that whilst there was a national obligation to minimize emissions it wasn't for the court to step in and set a numerical limit um was very much the outcome of the case but and we'll come to it in a bit more detail in a moment when we get into the double materiality point but if there becomes Frameworks and criteria um in the directive setting that companies then have to report upon have to identify their due diligence processes that they're involved in is there an Avenue seems to me somewhat almost an almost one waiting to be tested is there an Avenue there that the directors might find themselves personally responsible in breach of their directed duties for failing to implement those sorts of regimes I think that's a much more conventional way of analyzing it I think as the regulatory framework builds out and there are clearer obligation a and duties around climate disclosures and we'll talk about some of those obligations later on I know it becomes a lot easier I think for courts to analyze the questions and the issues and the responsibilities in terms of you know here is an obligation did the directors fulfill it did they take proper steps to comply with the disclosure requirements for example that that's far easier I think than reaching into areas where the courts certainly English courts and Common Law Courts think of it as being the domain of the legislature the domain of U the government to to regulate I think that underpinned several of the recent decisions there was another one in a case called Finch in the UK Supreme Court where the court found that a local Authority hadn't complied with its duties by failing to take account of scope three emissions in approving oil U development in the UK but there was a very significant dissenting judgment that was a 3-2 Supreme Court decision the dissenting judges essentially said this is a question for the government not for the courts I think as regulation develops and becomes clearer and becomes more hard edged in terms of what companies must do then the opportunities for directors to comply or fail to comply and be held liable for that absolutely increase right um and I just want to touch on with the the litigation strategy something that is close to your heart and um no doubt the pay packet which is the defensive compensatory case the compensatory um CL climate changes the diesel emission claims for example those sorts of sorts of areas um a lot of that tends to be tied down in Long lengthy procedural um argument it's almost as though it's an effort to wear out the class I say that in a in a slightly mischievous way but what are the defensive strategies not asking you to disclose necessarily what you're doing in any that you're involved in but are there are there well-known well seen well perceived defensive strategies to deal with that sort of litigation both at the court at the courthouse and indeed reputationally I think a lot of it is still developing I think um class action claims in particular in the environmental space have moved from being uh quite small scale cases focused on a particular development for example to much larger not not quite opt out cases but classes that bring in very large numbers of consumers and Diesel is is an example of that that's quite novel in many European jurisdictions at least and the playbooks and strategies are still developing I think some of the common defense tactics that you see firstly reputationally um companies now I think are prepared and ready to deal with a claim against them being announced in the Sunday newspapers and you adverts appearing on social media criticizing them and trying to sign up and book build groups of claimants and this kind of thing uh I think often though in this space the claims that are being brought and the class actions that are being brought are not necessarily news to the company in terms of the issues that are being litigated so if you look at the Brazil Dam collapse case for example currently in trial in the UK clearly the companies involved in operating the dam knew the dam had collapsed and had had regulatory investigations and so on so the litigation follows on whether it increases reput risk I'm not so sure actually I think often it's the regulatory intervention and the underlying incident itself I think the other area and Thomas may have a view on this where you see quite a lot of interesting defensive strategies playing into your point on procedure um investigating and attacking the underlying funding and the underlying economic interests is a pretty common tactic you see defendants really drilling into who's behind the claim what the interests are uh who the financial beneficiaries are going to be and turning the early procedural parts of the claim really into a question mark and investigation into how it's being packaged up and say Thomas you may have a an opinion on that but it's uh a common area I think where defendants spend their time Thomas I certainly have an opinion on that but uh I'm I'm with you and this might come as a surprise to you James I think that strategic litigation is typically one of the key aspects of funer a professional litigation funer wants to walk away from because litigation funding is an investment it is marketed and it is materially an alternative asset class the beauty of it it's noncorrelated the money is provided by the capital markets Pension funds family offices what that means is you need to be mindful of where and how you invest that kind of money to be able to come up with meaningful returns otherwise you'll be going out of business and that means that as a funer you are the embodiment of a cherry picker so we get presented with a 100 cases we look at 10 we fund to so and everything that points in the direction that it's the the lawsuit is about strategic implication that has and and goes beyond compensation aspects is something funders typically would not touch and that brings us probably to the aspect of climate cases funding so indeed Thomas um it's it's always fascinated me the way in which these cases are selected and I've been involved in some of them in the past where I've been asked to look at the file and give the funders a a perception of what the risk is from the black letter view of it um as presented up in the file um you're the one who's ultimately making the decision or you're part of the group that's ultimately making the decision is it is it a a blackl law question is it a potential return on investment question are there a whole lot of other intangibles that we're just not perceiving what drives this uh absolutely so when I started out in litigation funding my first job was for Munich G and setting up their litigation funding uh subsidiary and I was looking at this from a strictly legal point of view looking at merits of cases 25 years later I'll answer a question uh Duncan by saying I'm looking at the financial outcomes what this means for the pricing of risk because basically this is about the transfer of cost risk so we're looking at the financials first and then we are looking at what we call the intangibles meaning the the legal merits of a case are of course important but I fully trust you James if you would act for the plaintiff I know how good you are I also know if manula were on the other side that she's also an excellent lawyer so that's not the decisive point for me the decisive point when it comes to risk modeling and duration issues which informs the cost of capital and my return expectations is everything about it the intangibles as we call it for instance yeah no keep going for instance uh looking at the venue what's the legal culture uh in the country we are litigating is this a legal culture that's prone to settlement or is this a litigious culture look at the US versus the nordics for instance what I'm also interested is is look at the litigant how are they educated because I can demonstrate with data that the more educated all of us are the more settlement prone we are at the end because we are risk averse there are litigant out there who just want to get what they feel is their right that is something that's not good for a funding perspective because you want an outcome and you want it quick so and there are millions of data points outside the legal file outside the legal bubble that can and will be harness for funders to get a better insight into their portfolios and this will allow funders to do more climate related work we'll get to that I guess in so so so how is it going to be analyzed is this we've been hearing a lot all day about AI big Tech are you going to be using some of that energy uh source to be running open um open source um analysis as well with all of those data points and where are you going to harvest them from you going to scrape the internet as well as we heard today absolutely absolutely so the the beauty of this conference Linda thank you very much for this has all been discussed in the morning already the technology is out there what's really interesting is that it's now coming for the legal bubble as I call it uh every government aent agency out there uses that kind of technology to track money laundering every major Bank uses the existing technology to do kyc procedures what's coming now for the legal ecosystem is that this kind of Technology this kind of assessment will be rolled out to litigation and that will be beneficial there will still be a need for leers but the deployment of capital the availability of Insurance solution will be more cost effective it's a huge huge opportunity to do more meaningful work and one last sentence if I may in the context of climate cases funders are not the driving force as of now behind climate cases for a number of reasons the most important reason being these are mostly novelty cases funders need president to base their risk assessment on some of these cases are aiming for uh um not for compensation so also not good for funders but there is a huge amount of cases still available that will be funded if as a litigation funer I can have a better look at my whole portfolio if my whole portfolio has the elasticity to digest a more risky case and that is a development that's coming I I'll I'll I'll I'll wager anything on it and for a reason and this will be a good thing by the way so so funders are going to find themselves in a position within their book to actually be running the proclimate example cases um or or there going to be large wealthy funds themselves that are going to be turning up and wanting to play in this space looking for you to run the algorithms to find the most advantageous I think both dunkan there will there is what we call ethically interested Capital philanthropic uh investment fund managers who are providing capital for that space there are basically two ways you can go about this as funer you can have a billion uh us dos under management and get a what we call a special mandate to use a 100 million of that for climate cases and then you have the 900 million working to generate meaning meaningful returns and then you have a 100 million put at risk more risky but the returns from the 900 will still make this interesting for investors so both uh developments uh we will see more of so maybe we'll be calling you a white knight in the future not a dark master you do so um we hope so mangela um I want to Pivot now to operational and cost um and in particular the reporting directives that are um alluded to in the in the short opening time that I had um we can understand and history got a long history of understanding how the accountants will put together a materiality assessment financially how are they going to put together and what's going to be the process if there is a process of working out what's material what are the parameters for sustainability materiality in this sense under csrd or going forward um something that's then going to drive of um the cs3d due diligence directive um and its implementation okay so if I can answer your question with maybe a few observations first um the fact that we've just had cop 29 means we've been talking about this for 29 years and 32 actually and probably 20 years before that and and where I want to start that this conversation is around every time we've had one of these conferences where whether it's been the UN General Assembly whether it's been cop whether it's been I've just come from cop 16 which was in Riad um and there is Theseus press releases statements uh lots of sustainability reports lots of claims lots of pledges if all of those claims and pledges came true we wouldn't be talking about this topic today and that's really where I want to start is that the rigor of financial accounting is now coming into sustainability I'd call it holistic social economic and environmental integrated reporting and it is not good enough anymore or acceptable enough to do a 200 Page sustainability report or put something on your website and say this is what I'm going to do here are my my claims and what I'm going to do which has no no material bearing to what you do as a business so what materiality is now going to enforce so in under you talk csrd is in Europe regulation and under the IFRS is issb um that's coming now to uh Europe's already started uh it's hitting Asia it's going to hit the Middle East now as well and basically that's saying before you start your disclosure you will have to conduct if in Europe you'll have to do a double materiality assessment which I'll come to how you do that and um in under the issb IFRS it'll you'll have to do a fin a financial Mater materiality assessment now what does that mean for anyone who wants to be in the supply chain of these um organizations is that because there's now a regulation attached to that this is the first time we're going to see a number of things we're going to see lawyers in the reporting framework so more more disclaimers so a lot lot of disclaimers uh even the Auditors will be putting a lot more disclaimers um we but what financial and double materiality will do and this is the process basically it will say based on your size your sector your area of operation your product and services and what's important to your stakeholders uh that is what is material to your business and that is what you should be disclosing against um and for double materiality would be also what are you doing to the world around you and what is the world around you doing to you and so you have to now it's called really impact materiality as a whole and we have to we're getting away from measuring inputs and outputs to outcomes and impact now and so that's the first wave that's now hitting um everybody and even for those that are in the Middle East saying well it hasn't really hit me yet actually it is going to hit you because it's operate it's licensed to operate so if you want in uh capital from any com any country now that is under any of these laws if you want uh to win an RFP of any of these companies in any of these uh under any of these jurisic um these laws you will have to prove your sustainability credentials under those Frameworks um and so this is very very crucial and I just want to touch on you talked about cs3d so what's coming next is that once you're now disclosing against your uh what is material to your business once that disclosure happens if it is then found that they are weak or material risky issues in your supply chain you as the client you as the top Co in your whole value chain you will now be responsible to invest to make it right down your value chain I mean it's it's it's like so we have now European companies are looking at every single one of their suppliers are looking for disclosure at for at the supplier level which has never really been done before at this scale and because if they are found it's not the supplier's fault it will be the regulated entity fault and with what sort of sanctions or penalties they will have to pay and invest so let's just say they've been found there's been leaks or pollution or I don't know chemical spills whatever they will be liable to fix that problem it's huge we're talking huge investment and huge penalties that will come from that now my fear is that if you're covered by your your lawyer not to pick on you but if you're also you know covered by your insurance company and you're covered by your auditor and whatever then you could kick the can down the road and say Well it actually I didn't know my udor told me it was fine and my lawyer said it was fine and whatever you know so so that's the issue we're probably the most facing now is who's going to pay the bill because you'll keep passing the buck and to your point the enforcement in the teeth is not going to be well well there might even be a step back before that what you've described sounds very subjective what youve described sounds almost internal to every company in their own mind's eye view of what their impact is or are there objective regulations are there objective standards are there going to be objective criteria or does it depend on the quality of your consultant in the quality of your lawyer and the or then your own company's determination actually to play the rules here how's it going to so I wish we had an hour another hour panel for that um because um this is the issue so the materiality assessment is typically done by a consultant not to pick on any consultants if you're here um but to say that it is a very subjective hugely bias because you have to ask all of your stakeholders in your in your value chain what do they think what do they think is material to your business that is not a standardized approach it could be different to different people depending on where where you are in what country depending on your shareholders depending on your board that and that materiality assessment by the way can typically take um 12 to 24 months to conduct six to seven figures interviewing hundreds of people in the value chain if not thousands uh and by the time you get it you're handed again a deck to say there you go that's your material materiality assessment good luck You've Got to Now Implement that so if I dare say uh the platform that we we built was to really say no that's not good enough we actually have to make it completely objective unbiased and it has to be standardized so what we've done is using the power of technology and really building a neural network of every single stakeholder um every uh um national road map every regulation to say by answering a few questions on based on your size your sector your area of operations your products and services we will tell you what is material financial and double to your business and what are the metrics you should be disclosing against to align to that so that and we do that in a matter of days as opposed to two years because by the time it's two years it is literally out of it is not only out of date but you're actually folding foul of the regulation because you have to report every time there is a material change to your business but if you're only getting that the materiality assessment two years later then you are you you know you're in super risk and so we've taken all the bias out all the subjectivity I mean it it has to be standardized otherwise everyone's marking their own test James you wanted to say something yeah I think U the very interesting points Mela makes is that as these um regulations bed in there's litigation risks for different people there's the company there's the directors wants the obligations there but also The Gatekeepers the Auditors the lawyers the consultants and what I can imagine very happening is that best practices will emerge using platforms like yours for for example or using Consultants with particular expertise and and then the questions for boards and for directors and investors become is my company adopting these best standard these best practices to comply properly and if not are litigation risks and I think we've seen in some other areas you fraud litigation for example I think there's a lot more Regulatory and leous accountability being placed on accountants and Auditors now than there would have been 15 years ago and one can easily see as we all understand what we have to do yeah how one can you use litigation as a tool to ensure that best practices are being followed ensure The Gatekeepers are keeping the gates properly yeah well it sounds like as um um the United States is moving into its um uh its next new world of uh Elon and vicam cutting of um public servants that there might be an Avenue to rep position them over in many of these other jurisdictions because what you've been describing sounds like it's going to have need to have regulatory teeth behind it um if it's going to be truly of the effect that it's intended to be so can I just make a point and how how how is it going to be policed and is there room for what Thomas is saying using um uh using open source intelligence to actually police whether these companies are um giving effect to the supposed due diligence um commitments that be made in their reporting so I know we're talking about litigation and and penalties and fines but one thing we should be really talking about is reward because reward is actually what is compatible with human behavior and that's what makes the change faster if you feel you're going to be if you use regulation only as a stick um you you basically get negative behavior as well because you basically are going to do the bare minimum to tick the box and and make sure that you're covered but actually if you use regulation to reward and the Bad actors are actually then hammered for for you know that's you're going to get much bigger impact very very a lot faster and just to the ear you know to a point around 10% of the highest emitters in the world account for over half the emissions in the world so actually you can correct the behavior by the 90% getting rewarded for good behavior and the 10% getting hammered and being made because I think that's that's really what we have to do we've got very little time to make the Right Moves In the right place and we're in the AG adgm and I've been speaking to them about this is that actually where is should we be using regulation to reward that incentivize that positive behavior and insur better insurance premiums cheaper cost of capital um and actually the legal team the litigators and that the industry are using it to really call out the Bad actors um because that is again it's synonymous with our human behaviors to say oh I don't want that to happen to me and actually I'm getting I'm going down this road because I'm getting all the rewards for doing so just to complement what mola has said so uh uh I'm having a dialogue with the central bank and with the insurance local Insurance community on how to incentive those who would like to transition to a green economy and you know it's it's all about the proper due diligence of these businesses offering lower rates premium rates because what we see right now um especially after the flood incident in the UAE it cost the local insurance industry 3.5 billion and if we continue this way it's not going to be sustainable so we're thinking okay let's shift we have have to really offers solutions that are relevant to to the risk of today and tomorrow and support the transition and accelerate the CH the the uh transition to a green economy and uh that's when I you know heard of The Amazing uh solution that Howen has which is parametric insurance is a it's a payout incident trigger M uh before the loss happens and uh I've been talking about it for the last two years this year they are taking it seriously and they're saying let's go for a parametric insurance which does not require loss adjuster survey as any of that it's just a PIR out based on an incident so things are changing um and I was going to ask both of you when this the the reporting um discussion that you were just having um mangela ties neatly into where the insurance markets are sitting the costs that I outlined at the moment the climate risks the the climate change effects that are going to come greater storms um sea level change and the like are going to have to be borne by somebody they must be getting to a point where two things are happening certain areas are becoming uninsurable or there have to be changes in the insurance models to incentivize that's right are these happening yet are they coming are they already um hitting the bottom lines of companies um Rao and then Thomas so I I'll talk about um how the insurance can be an enabler because we we're now introducing the Blended Financial solution um bringing the government private entities and ngos to make sure that the premiums are uh feasible for the consumer or the policy holder and so this Blended Financial solution moving forward is the best best way moving forward as what do you mean by Blended Financial solution what's it involve so it's it's the funds coming together to subsidize premiums it's unlocking investment funds is stretching donations and is um uh prioritizing Financial proration and it's all entities coming together to create this pool MH Thomas where's where are the insurance markets going in this space to incentivize so as to reduce their exposure I I think the insurance markets have been aware of the situation probably before everyone else was really starting to talk about it if you look at Munich re climate Solutions Center they've been I think they in their 50th year now documenting wether incidents and your question was again to the point there are regions in the world where risk is becoming unendurable look at Florida where you have billions of value in yards tied up at every major Harbor or even smaller Harbor where insurers are walking out because it's uninsurable the risk of of hurricanes is simply too high home insurance in Florida is not available only or or or is scarce uh that's that's that's a fact the other thing is that insurance really can change the behavior of their clients for example if you have this big plant in Germany that's emitting a lot of SP smoke because you're producing nice little Poes the primary insurer will ensure your facility against fire and related risks only if you put in the latest in filter technology because they know and is that already play at in premiums absolutely and you get reduced premiums if you reduce your carbon footprint that's a very slow mechanism of course but it's something it's probably the only real measure we have right now and if I may say so looking at this conference and and the experience the Spirit uh in this room I think this creates also a fantastic opportunity for Abu Dhabi to think these things together think Insurance think risk think capital and capital efficiency together this is I think a unique place to come up with new Solutions and with a new approach to uh this conundrum R you were saying to me earlier today that um in talking about the way in which insurance markets have had to pivot it's it's had a local effect with the the floods in Dubai how did how did that change the way Insurance markets approached the market so it's still changing by the way while we're speaking right now is still in the discussion um there's definitely lack of talent there's definitely also um uh very poor response to how can we be relevant to the risk of today and tomorrow how can we address those issues pragmatically proactively and so what what I'm I'm personally perceiving is that we're going to see a lot of change we're going to be able we're going to look at insurance companies investing in talent and in technology talent in terms that we're going to see more lawyers Auditors scientists coming into the insurance world to provide relevant Solutions but also in technology uh we're going to see a huge investment in that now having said that it's a critical um period right now because we're going to require shareholders uh change mindset so how can we manage expectation on all for of all stakeholders so the shareholders needs to know that such investment will is a long-term uh return so return on investment will be longterm which might mean if they want to create a a sustainable triple triple bottom line MH but if they're not willing to wait that long then that's that's the risk so we're it's going to be interesting to see the change however I do see that uh the central bank is very active we're say we're saying to the central bank uh because of the lack of talent um you know regulations is great but if you don't have the people to enforce it then you what's happening is that you're going to you're going to reward the bad behavior and you're going to you know um really uh uh damage the uh the good behavior uh punish the good behavior and that's what that's not what we want we want uh enforcement to happen but because we're all learning in locally on how to build a sustainable model how to be relevant and all that uh we need to provide incentives so back to what mola has said incentives is the best perfect model ever you we can have score in we can have lower tax rates we can have many things really and we can have um incentives that is part of the pre-qualification bid uh requirement good examples Mel you wanted to say something yeah I just wanted to say so following on on on on this when I've spoken to the stakeholders whether it's the governments whether it's the financial institutions whether it's insurance providers whether anyone at the financial transaction level I'm saying to them what is stopping you from providing this incentive the first issue is data the data is not standardized so you don't can't compare apples with apples so if you've got someone and you and and to do that you would have to standardize across the board how would you measure an account for risk and how would you account for value and I'll give you an example of that right now if I was to do an RFP and uh let's just say I'm a construction company and I'm taking a number of measures in my practices to do the right thing uh take uh to to put processes and systems to reduce emissions etc etc in my building I put my technical proposal in and I put my commercial proposal in uh and they're typically separated okay so you've got procurement manager that's looking at this and they're really assessing two procurements one's looking at it from the technical side and one's again from the commercial side and actually once that goes in if they're looking at five six proposals they'll be like that I'm just going to take the cheapest one and that is actually what happens with most government bids by the way so who is pricing what the overall risk of the cheaper proposal is over time socially economically and environmentally uh and who's accounting for the value of that one bid or several bids that I have priced all of that in and this is a big big sort of piece of the puzzle so the data has to be standardized there has to be a a standardization of risk and versus value and the third is education which you touched upon is that we need to educate everyone that's then looking at this data to be able to understand what does that mean and be able to calculate and forecast that because that is sustainability means different things to different people there isn't a standardization of the language there's no so the education of the future procurement managers the future government leaders the future um litigators the future judges uh they need to have that level of education so they can actually opine on that and actually know how to read the data yeah education and awareness is very important and here um I must say adgm acad is a perfect platform to provide education and Empower Future Leaders to drive effective decisions James yeah I just want to go back on your point on enforcement as well um thinking as you were saying it that if you don't have effective regulation enforcement that's when you end up with Nos and private people stepping into the enforcer role through the courts the problem with that is it's always backwards looking it's looking at things that happened long ago and trying to you know bring that to relevance now but I don't think that really changes Behavior at the end of the day in fact it's the education piece it's the the policy piece and the education of the decision makers and so on as you say I think it's that rather than litigation strategies ultimately that are going to drive progress rather than remediation and penalties that's right I totally agree so we've come back to where we started since when we began talking about the outcome of the what we hopefully Proclaim litigation cases that fell over because courts saw rightly that their role wasn't to set social policy settings the field of inquiry was necessarily going to be too small for any Court to do that in a court decision and and and frankly many of the decision makers and simply not equipped to do it um and what was missing in those cases we were speaking about was a lack of objective um basis in a regulatory setting and it sounds like what you're talking about again is that we're at this point at a threshold through these uh reporting directives where the aspiration is there but what there then needs to now be is the next step across industry of consistency and understanding um is the message I'm getting from this uh we don't have time to wait any longer it's got to be done now frankly um if anything uh for the reasons I said earlier time might have passed and I'll leave you all just with this um with this uh request watch the Yan the professor Yan rockstrom um Ted Talk it is sobering perhaps more sobering than just the statistics and the trends at where we're going in climate tipping points is that in the six months since that was put up on the net it's had 1.25 million views when I compared that with um something that came to mind Taylor Swift lady gaggar and Justin Bieber each have more than 100 million followers for every thought Bubble at the moment the politics of climate change or climate change has become a political issue and we've sort of headed to a point where people have switched off through cost of living pressures and otherwise at the moment um my point my plea is for everyone to go back and just rebaseline ourselves of why legally we need to change the parameter here why in a regulatory setting we need to change the parameter here a long value chains to drag everyone up thank you [Applause] [Music] what