Catalyst with Shayle Kann - Digging into the SEC climate disclosure rules

Episode Date: March 21, 2024

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved new rules this month on what information companies must disclose about their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks, but notably dropped more stringent requirements that the commission initially proposed.  Despite being halted by lawsuits, the rules are a significant win for climate transparency. But they’re not as strong as existing climate disclosure regulations in California and the European Union, where many multinational corporations do business anyway. So how big of a deal are the new SEC rules? In this episode, Shayle talks to Mallory Thomas, risk advisory partner at consulting and accounting firm Baker Tilly US. The two talk about the details of the new rules and cover topics like: The rules’ requirements for disclosing greenhouse gasses and climate risks How the rules compare to European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and California’s twin climate disclosure laws Which companies are required to comply and under what conditions How standardized reporting may help with comparability across companies  Recommended resources: Baker Tilly: SEC announces final rules for climate-related disclosures Deloitte: A landmark ruling for ESG disclosure requirements Reuters: US climate rule will boost sustainable accounting industry Catalyst is supported by Antenna Group. For 25 years, Antenna has partnered with leading clean-economy innovators to build their brands and accelerate business growth. If you’re a startup, investor, enterprise or innovation ecosystem that’s creating positive change, Antenna is ready to power your impact. Visit antennagroup.com to learn more. Catalyst is brought to you by Atmos Financial. Atmos is revolutionizing finance by leveraging your deposits to exclusively fund decarbonization solutions, like solar and electrification. Join in under 2 minutes at joinatmos.com/catalyst.

Latitude Media, podcast at the frontier of climate technology. I'm Shale Kod, and this is Catalyst. Obviously, losing scope three from the SEC rule on its own seems like it would be a big blow to that world. But if everybody's going to have to do it anyway because of California, does it really matter? Yeah, I don't know if it really does. Disclosure.

What exactly are we to make of the SEC's new climate disclosure rule? When utilities need flexible capacity they can count on, they turn to Energy Hub. Energy Hub works with more than 170 utilities, coordinating over 2.5 million devices to manage 3.4 gigawatts of flexibility, built for the moments when utilities can't afford uncertainty. Energy Hub builds and operates virtual power plants that utilities actually stake their grid planning on, coordinating EVs, batteries, thermostats, and more through a single platform built for utility scale. predictive, verifiable, and designed to perform when it counts.

Learn more at Energy Hub.com. Trillions of dollars are flowing into clean and critical infrastructure, but those investments aren't driven by technology alone. They're shaped by markets, by policy, by capital, and by the institutions that connect them. I'm Alfred Johnson, CEO of Crux, and host of a brand new podcast, Critical Capital. Each episode, I talk with people deploying capital,

shaping policy and building the clean economy. tune in as we unpack how progress is actually made. Listen to Critical Capital on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Shail Khan. I invest in revolutionary climate technologies at Energy Impact Partners. Welcome. So, after a lot of fanfare and thousands, maybe millions of pages of roaring debate, the SEC's climate disclosure ruling has dropped.

And it seems to have landed with a bit of a thud. The headlines, at least in climate world, were basically all about the fact that the final rule dropped the scope three reporting requirement. And that is indeed super important. But also for me, it meant that the reporting sort of glazed over everything else. And everything else is kind of interesting. Like, how big a deal is this reporting going to be? How does it interact with other locations, including in the United States, by the way, that have mandated greenhouse gas emissions reporting or climate risk reporting and so on. It's becoming a common thing for me. Like climate tech related thing happens. Media covers one element of it and only that element

ad nauseum, but then skips the rest of the things. So in we swoop to cover all the things instead of just the one thing. And to do that with me, I brought on Mallory Thomas. Mallory is a risk advisory partner at Baker-Tilly, U.S. She focuses on ESG and sustainability and she's super deep in the climate reporting climate disclosure conversation. So here's my chat with Mallory about what we actually should be thinking about on the SEC's climate rule. Mallory, welcome. Thanks for having me, Michelle. Let's talk about the SEC's climate disclosure rule.

Can you start with a little bit of background? Give me the quick history of what led up to the rule that we finally got in the past couple weeks. Well, it's been anticipated for a while. I mean, two years in the making of waiting and some extended timelines for the final disclosure. And in the meantime, I mean, there's been a lot happening around the world. So CSRD and the EU, California with their climate regulation, a lot has been going on in this space. So it's nice to see some resolution from the SEC and to have some final rules in place. Let's talk about that for a minute, what's happening elsewhere.

and then we can layer on top of that what the SEC just added. So if I'm a corporation, let's say I'm a multinational corporation, like outside of, but prior to this new SEC rule, what are my requirements with regard to climate disclosure? Well, there's the CSRD and the EU, and that's just going into effect. So there's nothing to date as significant as what we're seeing with CSRD and SEC. There's specific rules and requirements around some of the exchanges. So as you think about the London Stock Exchange, there's TCFD, disclosure reporting,

similar to that from a climate risk perspective. But holistically, nothing as significant as what we're seeing to date around the impact to companies, both public and private. Even with the international side, too, like if we think about EU, there's so much double materiality, the number of metrics that have to be reported. And that's just coming to like now. Like, companies are preparing to report in 2025. So there's a lot of work that's being done.

If you have operations in the EU or I'm thinking from like a U.S. company perspective, that's typically the most impactful piece for an international company. Do you just define double materiality? Yeah, double materiality. Oh, yes, the big difference between the EU regulation and what we see in the states. In the States, everything's focused on the single materiality. So just the focus on what is a financial impact to a company. And then with double materiality, we're really looking at not only is it the financial impact,

but what are the social and environmental impacts as well. So how is the company impacting the social and environmental pieces, but then also the financial impacts to that company internally, externally, both those sides of it from a double materiality perspective? So all things equal, what you're saying is, that the European requirements that are coming into effect, the CSRD, includes a double materiality standard, which is, I guess, a more rigorous or more onerous depending on how you look at at reporting than if you just look at the financial impacts, which is what we're doing here in the U.S.?

Absolutely, yes. And so everything in the U.S., even California, it's all about financial impacts. In the EU, it's much more comprehensive to understand where the impacts outside as well as what's the impact financially to your company. Okay, so landscape prior to the SEC rule is you've got some bits of things on stock exchanges, you've got this EU rule that is coming into effect but hasn't fully come into effect. You've got California, which we haven't talked about in detail, but came up with its own thing. And then up shows finally the SEC rule. So can you just give me the high-level overview?

What is the SEC rule mandate? Yep, so the SEC is focused on. climate-related risks and the financial impacts of those risks. Material, too, material impacts. So thinking about materiality is a key aspect here is what is material from an impact perspective. There are specific thresholds for reporting what those material amounts are. And then also greenhouse gas emission reporting. And that's just scope one and scope two reporting. And doesn't include all public companies. It's just large accelerated filers and accelerated filers that have to report their scope one and two. So with,

California, California has scope three in the long-term range of reporting is required. With SEC, there's no scope three reporting requirements, and it doesn't impact all public companies. So there's specific requirements for large accelerated filers and accelerated filers for reporting their scope one and two and obtaining attestation, limited review over those scope one and scope two. So it's not as impactful from that perspective from a reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. with the SEC as it originally was proposed, including scope three in the original proposal that wasn't fully adaptive for scope three. Right. So, okay, so let's separate out two components of this. There's the emissions reporting components of this. How much emissions is your company responsible for? And there, that's what, and this is what a lot of the headlines have been about, you know, the, I think the draft rule included scope three, which for a lot of companies is the vast majority. of their emissions.

Yes. The final rule did not. It removed scope three. And so why? Like, what happened in the interim there? With the scope three, I think the hard part is a lot of the, it's hard to gather that data. And it's hard to, for companies, especially, you know, we think about large accelerated filers. Likely, a lot of them are probably already reporting scope three.

Many of them probably are. So it's less impactful, to be honest, I think, with the removal of scope three, I think the impacts are more on smaller companies and obtaining that information, all the estimations and judgment that goes into reporting scope three is difficult to do. And it can be a barrier for many companies to consider the scope three reporting. So I think that's where some of the considerations came in as the amount of lift that a company would have to go through to report scope three, and then just the completeness and accuracy of those data sources. Okay. So what happened in the interim is like a lot of companies probably told the SEC, this is too hard.

is going to be too labor intensive and the data won't be that good anyway. And obviously, they, in aggregate, convince the SEC to remove scope three. It's interesting that you say so many companies already do it. So, I mean, I guess at the high level, including all of this, like, how much incremental reporting are we going to get as a result of this rule? I think what this is going to be focused on is the comparability. So everyone has their own CSR report and they may be tying to specific frameworks for reporting. But really, the objective here is just to have the consistency and comparability of the data sources. So if you have public companies that are reporting, there's a consistent way to report the information.

So it's comparable to the investor and the users of the financial statements, which is key. Right. That's interesting. And, okay, so I said let's separate out the two parts. I didn't get to the second part. The first part is emissions reporting. How much greenhouse gas emissions are you responsible for? The second part is reporting about risk, climate risk. So what is in the rule with regard to climate risk?

So for the climate risk disclosures, it does follow closely TCFD. So within the TCFD, identifying with those climate risks from an impact perspective that are material that have occurred. So like those expenditures related to any, you know, as you think about the physical risks. So if you have a tornado and it puts down your plants, we'll identify what was that cost. And if it's material having to disclose that amount as well. Wait, sorry, can I pause on that for one second? Is that related to things that have happened? Or it's a risk analysis, right?

So is it a version of saying like sea level rise could, we have a property that's on the sea level and sea level rise and this location could impact that property? And here's the dollar cost associated with that. It's that version of physical risk? Well, so I think there's two aspects to this. There is like the aspect of the quantification of the amount of something that's occurred that's material to the company.

So like that piece is one part of this. the broader context like you're mentioning is identifying what those material risks are to your company and organization. So I think that's the aspect of climate-related risks. And the first step is just understanding what risks that are applicable to your company. And that's through the transition risks and the physical risks. So thinking about chronic and acute risk related to your company and being able to articulate and report what those risks are. And then the other aspect of this is then taking, okay, we have all these climate-related risks. how are we managing these risks? How is management assessing those risks? And what's the board's role in oversight of climate-related risks?

So that gets to the broader context of risk management and how is that incorporated with overall risk management processes, too, within the company. What is your sense of how this rule has been regarded the ultimate final rule from large companies that are going to be subject to this reporting? I think many, when we think about large Excel rate of violers, a lot of them are reporting a lot of this information within their CSR reports or within their

sustainability reports. If they're multinational, they're doing this work to date. And so I think that's the piece that large accelerated filers likely have reporting that they're executing to date. So it's probably not a significant lift. Where I think the SEC probably has less of an impact is with the scope three removal, there was this fear by many private companies that they were, they're within the scope three of many of these larger companies, so then they would have to restart reporting their scope one and two to some of these larger organizations. So I think that trickle-down effect is something that is likely not going to occur or be as impactful to date.

But then I always get into like there's California. So I don't know. There's a whole aspect of California, and that's private and public companies who doesn't do business in the state of California if you're a large company. I think that's going to be a hard impact for many companies and organizations, private and public. So it's kind of like SEC is here, but California is probably more impactful from a private company perspective. Right. Like basically every large company does business in California. So there's some argument that like California, if California made stringent enough rules, it kind of didn't matter what the SEC did because SEC wasn't going to do something more stringent than California.

and you're going to have to comply with the California rules anyway if you do business in California. Yeah, exactly. And so I think California kind of, you know, put with their regulation and kind of made the SEC, okay, it doesn't really matter as much because people were waiting and waiting on the SEC to see what they were going to come out with. And, you know, California kind of slid in there this fall with their regulation. And I think the climate-related risk piece is huge. And that's something that's been reported every other year.

And then the greenhouse gas emission reporting with, scaled a test and assurance levels as well there. Do we expect or do we see legal challenges on the basis of California having sort of superseded the SEC? Well, I think there's already some legal challenges in California that are being faced with that regulation. I think to, I mean, we're seeing other states propose, it's almost word for word similar to California.

So in New York, Illinois. And that's the piece that I think it's going to become complex if you're thinking about companies in the United States having to reprimed. report to all these different states utilizing, you know, with California, they're going to utilize a submission platform for your greenhouse gas emissions so they can see all the different emissions from different companies. So thinking about a company who has operations in all these different states having to report, I mean, a lot of the information and data is similar, but just the exercise of, oh, here's my submission to this platform and this state of my greenhouse gas emissions,

or uploading and making sure that you're tagging all of your, you know, risk reports from a climate risk impact perspective. I think that's going to be the piece that could become a lot of work for organizations, both public and private, with a lot of these regulations. So one of the things that I think has been interesting as we've been waiting for the final rule and everybody's been speculating about what it's going to end up looking like is, I feel like there's sort of two ecosystems that have been developing in anticipation of various forms of climate disclosure requirements. There's an ecosystem of the sort of carbon accounting platforms and platforms that do that plus other things.

And then there's this whole ecosystem on the back end of like, okay, there's going to be all this new public data about public companies, maybe some private companies as well. And so that data can flow into the infrastructure of finance in a bunch of different ways and can be used for ratings and for all sorts of other things. So let's talk about both of those ecosystems a little bit and how they get affected by this rule, maybe starting with the sort of carbon accounting side. Obviously, losing scope three from the SEC rule on its own seems like it would be a big blow to that world. But if everybody's going to have to do it anyway because of California, does it really matter? Yeah, I don't know if it really

does, to be honest. I think we're going to see a lot of these reporting tools are going to be utilized. And I think companies need help because that's the part, especially on the east side. Like the S and the G, a lot of companies are already doing things when we think about ESG reporting related to the S and the G, even the governance aspect with the SEC. I mean, there's board roles of oversight and governance in place. But the E is what's going to take the most effort is how do you quantify your greenhouse gas emissions? And then having the rigor of assurance over that information is going to be more of a lift for a lot of companies, especially as we move to reasonable assurance and getting those data sources to make sure that they're complete and accurate. And then two, with these tools, I mean, they're going to have to make sure that they have appropriate controls within these tools as well around the information and data that they're storing in there, the reports they're pulling from a completeness and accuracy perspective, too. So in that context, does it make a difference that the SEC, I mean, there's no scope three, but even for scope one and two, like, the SEC is going to be looking at your submissions and it needs to be reasonably accurate and so on.

So it does provide a bit of a tailwind just in the sense that like the robustness of this accounting and thus the platforms that deliver this accounting has to be pretty significant. Yeah, I agree. And I think the part with the SEC, I mean, you have to upload your ad test report. So like your report over your greenhouse gas emissions reporting that's been completed. I now think the SEC is going to like look into like the accuracy of all these different, you know, greenhouse gas emissions that companies are reporting. Yes, they're going to look to add testation. reports, and if there's something crazy, obviously they'll investigate that a little bit further. But I think the piece is going to be, it's just the amount of information that's available and the data sources. But like scope one and scope two, like we talked about, it's not as much of a lift, honestly, for companies to report because a lot of this information they likely

have. That's the only thing that might be impactful for, like you mentioned, scope three, is harder to obtain those information sources. There are a lot of different assumptions you can utilize, a lot of different judgment that's needed with some of the scoping. and reporting of scope three, where I think the tools and technology probably had a better play with the scope three inclusion, because I think companies, you know, as much as some of them don't have the money and the budget to be procuring all these SADs tools for reporting, some of them may utilize some of the free guidelines that are out there with the greenhouse gas protocol. You can utilize their spreadsheet. The EPA has spreadsheets that you can utilize

to report Scope 1 and scope 2. So it'll be interesting to see what companies do for reporting. Virtual power plants are becoming a reliable way for utilities to manage capacity. But enrolling devices is just the start. What really matters is confidence, knowing those resources will perform when dispatched and being able to prove it from the control room to the living room. Energy Hub's platform handles the full picture, from near-real-time forecasting, locational dispatch,

and the kind of rigorous verification that holds up when regulators, grid operators, or leadership, ask, did it deliver? Easy enrollment creates momentum, proven performance builds trust. That's why more than 170 utilities rely on Energy Hub to manage over 2.5 million devices delivering 3.4 gigawatts of flexible capacity. See what that looks like at energy hub.com. We're living through a profound economic shift, and energy sits at the center of all of it, Trillions of dollars are flowing into power plants, transmission lines, battery factories, data centers,

but the future of energy isn't shaped by technology alone. It's shaped by markets, by policy, by capital, and by the institutions that connect them. I'm Alfred Johnson, CEO of Crux, the capital platform for the clean economy. Join me for my brand new show, Critical Capital, as I talk with people deploying capital, shaping policy and building projects. Together, we unpack how risk is priced, how incentives are structured, and how progress is actually made. Listen to critical capital on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. And then let's talk about the other end of the spectrum. So all this data becomes public on all these companies. What is emerging? What are you seeing emerge to sort of like translate that data

into investment decisions of one kind or another? Yeah. So, I mean, there's all the and rankers and utilizing different metrics, and they all have different methodologies. So I can see, you know, if there are specific investors who have interest in specific, you know, emission reduction, goals and targets, they're likely maybe pressure for some companies to have stated targets and goals. And I think that's going to be what's interesting as companies start to baseline. So the first time they're going through the reporting process, their baselining, they're reporting their scope one in scope two. to what comes next? Are there going to be expectations then for emission reduction?

Now, to be clear, there's nothing within the SEC disclosure that requires any kind of emission reduction. So I want to be clear about that. That's a key point, right? This is just reporting. It's not mandating any kind of goal setting. Exactly, exactly. And I think that's an important point because I think sometimes there's some unclarity around the purpose of what the SEC's disclosure is and then also what's the expectation for emission reduction, and that's just not a part of the disclosure requirements or the SEC's role in general. Right, right. So to that end, like, questions around what you're going to do to reduce your emissions or offset them, right? Like the carbon market impact of this,

if anything, it's indirect, but it seems maybe nothing. Well, there, I mean, there are disclosure requirements for racks and offsets within the SEC disclosure. So the final rule does include disclosing that if it's a part of how you're planning to obtain, or if you have goals and targets, how you're going to get there. If that's the avenue you're going to take, you have to disclose those. Wait, can we pause on that for one second? So if you have goals, you have to report them, and if you have a plan as to how to hit the goal, you have to report it, but you don't have to have a goal. Am I describing this right? Yeah. That's interesting. It's almost a, I mean, I wonder whether that creates a disincentive to set public goals,

because you, like, don't have to report it if you don't have one. Yeah, I think there's, well, I mean, today, with all the greenwashing that I think has occurred, I think companies are being very mindful of the goals and targets that they set, which is unfortunate to an extent because I feel like people are now hesitant to, like, set a goal or target. But also, I think it's important that as companies set goals and targets, they are thinking through the plans to achieve these goals and targets. And I also think that's an important role that a board plays in an oversight position is making sure as management setting these goals and targets,

really having a clear understanding of how they're going to get there, what are the transition plans or what are the offsets, what are the wrecks, what is the strategy there? Because I think that's key in making sure that there's proper governance over the goals and targets that are set. So if I'm company X and I've got, let's just say, my scope one and two emissions today is a million tons total. And I've stated a goal to get to net zero by 2050.

And I've stated some version of a plan to reduce my emissions in the meantime. That stuff all has to get reported. But there's no. And let's just say I'm also buying carbon credits or removals or whatever to make up for part of it. I have to report all of that now, thanks to the SEC rule, but there's nothing in the rule that sort of like tries to ensure that my plan is robust or that the credits that I'm purchasing are high quality. It'll be information the world can use. But the rule is, requires some measure

of fidelity on the emissions accounting, but not the emissions reduction or removal. Well, and two, it's material. So if it's material to your transition plan and your goals and targets, that's where the disclosure is required. So everything's through the lens of materiality. And I think that's an important aspect to consider, especially with anything within this rule, it's all about materiality. And I think that's key in understanding. The overall aspect of the disclosure is if they are material and any expenditures related to those transition activities, if material, there is a phase in disclosure. there as well. Can you maybe given a theoretical example of like something that that would be material or something else that might not be material in this context? I think it's like the cost, right? So if like most of your transition plan is based off of the, you're going to offsets or that would be material to your plan, right? So I think that's the way to consider that. I mean, it's all about different thresholds of materiality for disclosure purposes. So I think that piece, is going to be the part that may be harder for companies to evaluate initially, you know,

as they start thinking through their goals and targets, what is their long-term plan to have emission reduction? And what are the impacts, honestly, from like a reporting perspective, like knowing what they're going to actually have to disclose in the future as they're, as they're transitioning as well. Maybe I'm overly concerned about it, but as I hear about it, I continue to worry that there's a disincentive to do anything material. from an emissions reduction standpoint, or at least to commit to anything material because it introduces the reporting requirement

about it that you can avoid if you just either don't state an emissions reduction target, you don't have a plan, or what you're doing is immaterial. Yeah, well, I mean... It's probably not enough of a disincentive to really stop... Like, if the pressure is real on companies

to set emissions reduction plan, I presume having to report it to the SEC is not going to stop them from doing it, probably. Yeah, and I, well, I think the other thing, too, is, like, a lot of companies, that they are setting targets and goals, especially with, like, the current environment, there is an expectation from investors, from stakeholders for communication on plans and, like, obtaining an understanding of where they are today. Like, there's more expectations there, I think, given what's happened in the past,

and some of the greenwashing that's occurred, I think there's just a lot more focus on, you know, target schools and progress to date. And I think that's going to be continue. Like that's not going to go away. So with the disclosure requirements, I think this is something just probably more of a formality almost of what we're going to see in the future anyway, just because of the stakeholder and pressures

that they're getting from, you know, investors and others, even like board members, thinking through their role in this and making sure that they have a good understanding of the progress made to date. And that's communicated appropriately from a governance process. So was there anything, I mean, it was sort of in the ether that, particularly in the week ahead of the final rule that scope three wasn't going to be in there.

Was there anything in the final rule that surprised you? Surprise me. Yeah. I mean, the scope three piece is huge. I don't think there's anything that was overly, I mean, I think everyone anticipated scope three was going to be out after that was kind of leaked earlier on. And I think, too, just the amount of, what, 16? thousand comment letters, like crazy, right? So companies were, you know, obviously communicating and the challenges that they were anticipating facing with scope three disclosure. So I think many

people anticipated that piece. Yeah, I mean, the one thing I think interesting that was removed, but makes sense, is some of the identification of board members with the climate risk background, like talking about and identifying if there's someone on your board who has this expertise. Similar to what we see with cybersecurity, like, who is on your board, who has a cyber expert. So some of those aspects, I think, are interesting. That's super interesting because, like, who has that expertise? Not many people. Especially at board member level. Like, there's just, yeah. Like, how many public company board member qualified people are climate risk experts? Yeah. No. I mean, not many. That would be a good, like, statistic, though, to understand,

because I would be curious. I mean, I'm sure, you know, if you get into some of the renewable companies, I would hope they have board members with that experience or understanding, but I think it's probably not very common. No, I mean, maybe transition risk, I guess. Like, you can, physical climate risk, it's a pretty specialized, like, to be an expert in physical climate risk, you have to be an expert in climate modeling and then risk. I mean, you know, I know some people who are experts and could be potentially public board. Yeah, exactly. I have a couple friends. I'm just thinking should join every public board now.

Yeah, they would have gotten some. gigs. They missed out on that. Bummer. Okay, so I guess stepping back and wrapping up here, two questions. One is, how should we be thinking about this SEC rule in the broader context of climate reporting and climate disclosure? And two is, is there a next shoe to drop? Like, are we waiting on something else that hasn't happened yet? Big regulation or ruling anywhere, or is this kind of, we think the landscape is settled after the SEC rule? Oh, I think this area is going to evolve. I, well, I mean, outside of the SEC, I think the SEC,

what we see today is is probably pretty clear of how things are going to go in the United States from an SEC perspective. But I think in Europe with CSRD, I mean, many companies, you know, large companies are reporting. They're getting ready for. CSRD. They're not even focused on this SEC piece. It's all about the double materiality. It's all about going through the materiality assessment and understanding what those risks are that they have to report, multiple metrics for reporting from a CSRD perspective. And I think we'll see companies start to adopt more voluntary frameworks outside of just climate, right? So they're going to start reporting other frameworks. We think about the IFRS and the IASB and

some of those voluntary frameworks for disclosure, as exchanges may adopt those pieces as well in those frameworks, we'll see companies likely reporting more, but that's all from a financial impact perspective. I think in the United States specifically, I think with states following suit. So, you know, California is out there. We have New York proposed in Illinois. I mean, it would be interesting to see how things evolve across the states and what regulations come to date. All right, Mallory. Thank you so much for. for joining me and helping elucidate some of the complexity around this stuff. Thanks. Mallory Thomas is a risk advisory partner at Baker-Tilly, U.S., where she focuses on ESG and sustainability.

This show is a production of latitude media. You can head over to latitudemedia.com for links to today's topics. Latitude is supported by Prelude Ventures. Prelude Backs Visionaries, Accelerating Climate Innovation that will reshape the global economy for the betterment of people and planet. Learn more at Preludeventures.com. This episode was produced by Daniel Waldorf, mixing by Roy Campanella and Sean Marquan, theme song by Sean Marquan. I'm Shail Khan, and this is Catalyst.