Amazon, Walmart, and Microsoft Compete to Have the Least Impact

can be countries. For example, last year, the UK put into law a net zero by twenty fifty target, and earlier this year, China made headlines when it announced the twenty sixty net zero target, followed soon thereafter by South Korea and Japan. But these aren't the only ones. A rapidly growing list of countries have announced plans for net zero, and you can find extensive coverage on this on countries ambitions throughout be net research. But these entities can also

be companies. Google, Amazon, and Apple have all set ambitious net zero targets. Microsoft has gone even further with a carbon negative target. But it's not just tech. Groups of companies in what seems like every sector have made their climate ambition. Is known, but why now? Why are we seeing more and more companies make these commitments. This week on the show, We've got benf corporate sustainability analyst Kyle Harrison.

He'll tell us about what's driving corporate net zero targets, the why now, what net zero actually means in practice, and the bumpy right ahead for those going down this road. Our discussion is based on report titled Corporate net Zero Targets Primer Jump on the bandwagon being if users can get this report on BNF dot com, the BENF mobile app, and the Bloomberg terminal as a reminder being to stop provide investment or strategy advice, and you can hear the

full disclaimer at the end of the show. I'm Mark Taylor and you're listening to Switch on the BNF podcast. Hey Kyle, thank you for coming on the show today. Yeah, thanks for having me. You know, it seems like every time I look at the news, I see a new net zero announcement, whether it be a country or a company. We're here today to talk about net zero, So Kyle, can you just start us off? What is net zero?

Net zero is is a company taking all of its greenhouse gas emissions across its entire value chain down to zero, effectively in a lot of ways, balancing out its emissions with some type of activity that reduces or stores those emissions. Is that the same as when I hear a country say net zero as well? On paper? Um, it should be the same things. So you know, there's there's a bunch of different terminology that companies are using now when

they set a net zero target or equivalent. Right. So, um, you hear companies say things like carbon neutral or climate positive or carbon negative, and a lot of those things are used interchangeably, those phrases, but by definition they actually all mean different things. So when a company sets a net zero target, it should really again apply to their

entire value chain for all greenhouse gas emissions. But if you think about something like carbon neutral, that's only carbon dioxide, right, it doesn't include other greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide and methane. And then something like carbon negative actually involves taking your emissions below zero. So beyond just your emissions netting out at zero, you're investing in additional technologies or purchasing carbon credits, um that are effectively netting those emissions out below zero.

So with a lot of these definitions, some of them say carbon, some of them say emission. So that distinction was really great for you to just point out. It looks like a lot of them are measuring the absence of emissions or carbon. And there's one term that you pointed out in the research note that we're talking about today and its climate positive. What does climate positive mean? So the key point, the key thing to keep an eye out for when you look at the terminology is

is really the use of carbon or climate. Right, So when you think about any target or any phrase that uses carbon, again, that just applies to carbon dioxide. When the company phrases their target as climate positive or climate negative, which is effectively the same thing that applies to all greenhouse gas emissions, or at least it should on paper, right.

So climate positive is very similar to a carbon negative goal or a carbon positive target, but again it just extends to methane and things like nitrous oxide as well as carbon dioxide. So that's kind of the key differentiator.

But if you think about this, I mean from an investor standpoint, it becomes really different coal to actually sift through all these targets and compare them apples to apples, right, investors actually need to go ahead and look at these companies sustainability reports and those announcements specifically to see what those targets entails. And that's definitely one of the things that is potentially holding this market back at the current time.

Let's get into the standards and and certification in a second, but really, can we go back to why our companies doing this at all? Is it pr is it having an edge in their competitors, Is it the consumer value proposition, or does it make them more investable or a combination of the all of the above. It's a combination of

all the above. I would say that the biggest driver is definitely that investor pressure, right, So increasingly investors want to put their money in companies that mitigate their susceptibility to what we call climate risk and transition risk. So climate risk is your exposure to these physical climate related events like forest fires and droughts and electricity grid blackouts. And then transition risk is as we pivot to a low carbon economy and you have more low carbon regulation,

you have changing consumer preferences. Companies again become increasingly susceptible to these types of risks. So by setting a net zero goal or an emission reduction strategy more broadly, companies actually make themselves safer to invest in because they're mitigating

their exposure to some of those risks. If I'm an oil and gas company and I start investing in clean power or electric vehicles, like some of these oil majors are already doing, those are businesses that we think are going to you know, make up a larger part of the low carbon economy moving forward, more so than you know, fossil fuels. So that's, you know, one great example of how companies can kind of pivot and be more attractive

from an investment standpoint. So net zero targets are really kind of the cream of the crop or the gold standard when it comes to emission reductions goals. So if you want to make an investor happy, really the best way to do it is to set a net zero target. What I would say, though, and you mentioned this earl of mark, is there's definitely a degree of one upsmanship here. So via a large technology company or utility or an oil and gas company, one of your biggest competitors sets

in net zero goal. Um, that's driven a lot of other companies to set targets of their own to kind of keep pace with their competitors. So really it is a combination of many things. But I would say satiating investors and making investors happy is the biggest driver, followed by you know the fact that it's a great way to one up your peers and sustainability, so net zero

peer pressure. So actually that leads me to another thought because if I'm looking at all of these kind of in theory and isolation, I'm watching the news cycle and I'm seeing different companies make net zero targets. Which industries are kind of leading in these target making endeavors. It's a bit cliche, but I would say that technology companies

are definitely the leaders here. So they're not as emissions intensive as again companies in the oil and gas sector or utilities, but technology companies are setting to targets that need to be achieved much earlier than other sectors. So if you look at some of the leading tech companies that have set these goals like Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon, their targets are expected to be met in and that's ten years or twenty years earlier than the Paris Agreement.

But it's also ten or twenty years earlier than most other net zero targets that are being set in other sectors. And why is this? They're just more ambitious, I would say part of it is the fact that they're they're just setting more ambitious goals. The other important thing to note is a huge portion of the carbon footprints for tech companies is what we would classify as scope too, and that means it's your indirect emissions that come from

the electricity grid. So the most effective way to reduce your scope to emissions is to purchase clean energy. So that's kind of my long winded answer of saying they have a one size fits all solution to reduce a

large portion of their carbon footprint. But the last thing I want to highlight that really makes the big tech companies stand out is there again setting net zero targets that also address their Scope three emissions, and those are your indirect emissions that come up and downstream along the

value chain. So if you think of a company like Apple, that's from its product manufacturing upstream, so those large companies like Fox con and Taiwan Semiconductor, Whereas for an oil and gas company, their Scope three emissions largely come from the use of their products downstream, so think of things like burning road fuel and jet fuel. So a lot of tech companies are setting scope three targets as well.

That actually ultimately end up at zero, and that's something that a lot of other sectors have not yet done. So they deserve high marks in that regard as well. I've been wondering why now. I still can't quite get it. Is it more pressure you feel like you hear these announcements all the time, as Dana said, right, is it more pressure from investors? Or is it the one upsmanship you know that's driving all these announcements now? Or did Paris and the I p c C in the one

point five degree scenario have a huge impact? I mean, is this the resulting catalyst from that? So on the investor from you have massive asset managers and investors that are setting what we would call net zero finance dimissions.

And I am aware that I'm throwing another term into the mix, heer, I apologize, But asset managers like black Rock and banks like Morgan Stanley are now making commitments where the emissions of their portfolios by will also be net zero um and again we call that net zero finance dimissions. Okay, So if you want to stay in you gotta you gotta perform exactly, And a lot of these companies are joining their specific initiatives for the investment

community UM that that focus on these areas. So a great example is what we would call the Climate Action one hundred plus and that's a group of now over five hundred investors and asset managers that are pledging to get their portfolio companies to report better environmental, social and governance data but also to reduce their emissions. So again, you know, a lot of it is being catalyzed by

that investor pressure. But the other exciting component to this is, and you know, Danny, you mentioned this in the beginning, you're starting to see a lot of countries now putting forward legislation for net zero um So, in the last month we've seen China, South Korea, and Japan all put forward legislation for a net zero target. And what that's really gonna do is it's going to kind of open the door and really trail blaze the way for the private sector within those countries to go ahead and set

in net zero goes of their own. Because China is going to need to expedite it's retirement and fossil fuels, it's going to need to expedite it's clean energy, it's e V fleet rollouts, all those types of things are going to benefit private sector players. You know, that's further

incentive for these companies to set targets of their own. Well, so, yeah, let's talk a little bit about accountability, because you referenced kind of two things just now, which is one the net zero targets that countries are making, which invariably does have to do with the companies that operate within it, and to financial community, which is demanding more information and presumably a lot of these companies to join and make commitments with third parties that are actually kind of at

least systematizing this stuff or making it transparent in a way that they can use. So where do you think most of the pressure is and is going to come from? Will it be the finance community, will it be governments, or will it be something else? A lot of it will again come from from the finance community, but you do have a number of initiatives, many of which are competing with each other, that are now being rolled out

to help standardize, you know, this net zero movement. So I guess we can kind of start from the broadest level. So the u N has convened what they call Race to net Zero. That's now a group of over eleven corporations that have set some form of a net zero target mark and Dan, I think you guys will will

get this analogy. But you know when you're growing up and basically all the kids in in the United States, they go ahead and they play Little League baseball, right, and everyone is accepted into that Little League Baseball league. That's kind of the way that I would think of Race to Zero. It doesn't really have any stringent rules. Any company can join UM, and you have a lot of kind of mom and pop shops that are part of that UM. So that's kind of at the broadest level.

And one of the things that Race to Zero wants to do is kind of help move the needle on policy. So if you can kind of show up to the negotiating table as a consortium of over a thousand companies UM, the hope there is that it can open the door for more access to clean energy buying and things like e V procurement. But then you also have a number

of actually private set of lead initiatives. So two ones that I would highlight our Amazon's Climate Pledge UM and they even named their new arena in Seattle after this climate Pledge, So that's a group of companies that have planned or planned to go net zero. Then you also have transformed to net zero, which is rolled out by Microsoft. So these types of corporate lead initiatives are you know, partially driven by you know, a need for better PR.

So as a company, I can align myself with a with a leader like Microsoft or Amazon, and that really does help from a PR standpoint. But what I would say that's really exciting about these these private sector lead initiatives is um they facilitate collaboration and that's one of

the reasons they've been created. So for example, Amazon went ahead and purchased electric vehicles from Mercedes Benz, which is also part of the Climate Pledge, and they said that that transaction was actually facilitated by these two companies joining this initiative together. You know, they're planning for very similar collaboration to happen between the companies. So these private sector

initiatives are are really exciting. But the one that I think any relevant stakeholder and investor, or a corporate sustainability practitioner, the one that everyone should be keeping an eye out on, is the net zero framework that's going to be rolled out by the Science Based Targets Initiative. So they're gonna be basically create a methodology in the next year or so. UM, that's gonna lay out a clear pathway for Again, what

is net zero? So if you want to set a net zero target as part of the Science Based Targets initiative, it needs to meet certain criteria. But they're also laying out clear guidelines on how you actually achieve that goal. So what type of carbon credits you can use, what type of technologies you can use, how you have to reduce your gross emissions before you can use any of these technologies. All of that type of stuff is going to be made very clear, um and laid out within

this Science Based Targets framework. UM. And I think you know to your point data about accountability. UM, that's going to go a long way and making sure that these companies are held accountable. Two questions, why are you confident in the Science Based Targets initiatives in particular? And can you give us a preview of what some of those things are carbon credits are or whatever they're called in there that a company can use to actually reach the target.

So the reason I'm confident in the Science Based Targets Initiative is because you know, we have historical data. I mean, this is an initiative that has existed for for several years now, right, and at this point you have over a thousand companies that have pledged to set what we call a science based target, and that means that they will reduce their emissions in line with a well below two degree scenario, which is outlined in the Paris Agreement.

So theoretically, on paper, the way the Science Based Targets Initiative works is if all the countries in the world they're not doing their part to get us well below two degrees, what if every single private sector player in the entire world went ahead and set a target of their own. That's the way that the Science Based Targets Initiative is expected to work. This campaign, this initiative has more momentum than any other sustainability commitment that currently exists

out there. So this year you've had over four companies pledged to set one of these goals. For the net zero component of the Science Based Targets Initiative, it's basically going to be taking those goals that companies are setting in line with the Parish trajectory and basically taking it a step further. Um. So, Mark, you talked about kind of the ways in which the Science Based Targets Initiative

outlines that you can hit your goal. First, inform a a company that would join this initiative, they need to go ahead and they need to reduce their gross emissions in line with that Powish trajectory. Um. And again that's something that any company with a science based target already has to do. And then only then once you've kind of reduced your gross emissions by you know, again pivoting your your business model away from emissions intensive practices or

investing in low carbon technologies. Once you've done those types of things, you can go ahead and purchase carbon credits to kind of net out the remainder of your emissions and take them to zero. But the key differentiator that the Science Based Targets Initiative lays out is only carbon credits that actually remove carbon from the atmosphere or sequester

or carbon can be used to achieve that target. So if you think about a company like Walmart that just made this announcement a couple of months ago that they're going to basically planned several million acres of forest UM and also restore I think a million square miles of ocean. That type of activity will go ahead and create carbon credits that again store sequester carbon. So those credits would

be accepted under the science Based Targets initiative. But if I purchase a carbon credit that simply offsets my mission, say from a clean energy project or clean cookstone distribution, those would not be considered a viable means to achieve your science based target. So they're gonna set again a very stringent methodology for what is and what isn't accepted

to achieve these goals UM. And again, I think that's going to turn this net zero landscape that we you know, talk about in our report and we define as the wild West of sustainability targets UM. It's going to take this from a wild West to kind of again a really standardized emission reductions movement. Are planting trees and doing those sorts of projects in addition to actually working on your businesses more direct emissions to what they do day today.

Is that proving to be increasingly popular? It is if you look at the existing landscape of of carbon credits UM in the market. Forestry projects, which we broadly abbreviate as red plus because there's so many different kind of projects that fit into this category, including agriculture. Red plus projects make up about a quarter of the total carbon offset market today. That sector is growing faster than any

other one. So energy generation projects, you know, from clean energy, those are the most common projects that exist, but a lot of those are legacy projects and they've existed for for you know, a decade now or more than a decade um, and they actually came from compliance carbon markets long ago, and some of those credits have been earmarked for corporations to use. So that's the biggest sector now. But if you look at what's growing the fastest, it's

definitely forestry projects um. And you know, there's the opportunity to generate carbon credits from forestry projects all around the world. I mean, that's definitely one of the exciting um and one of the biggest drivers for for companies to look at this segment of the mark it. You mentioned ocean as well, So is that like areas where they're seaweed and seaweed is seen as a absorbing carbon or is

there something else there? So I would say that anything related to ocean is kind of a niche part of the carbon markets now, you know. Again, I think Walmart's announcement was pretty groundbreaking. They want to be what they call a regenerative company moving forward. I don't think that ocean and water related carbon projects are going to be

this this huge sector moving forward. I think again, there's gonna be a lot more focus on on four stream agriculture because there's a huge opportunity to sequester and store large amounts of carbon. But yeah, that's definitely you know, A way that companies can kind of again serve as a trailblazer in this area is is purchasing carbon credits from brand new projects that you know, other companies aren't

already looking into. One of my favorite episodes we've done it was a few months ago with you and it was about carbon offsets and we talked about red plus in there, and we talked about the difficulty of certifying these projects. I imagine it's the same thing here, right, Who is going to be certifying these carbon credits that the company says they have or that an investor wants

to see is proven. So in terms of carbon credits, all the certification will be carried out by the four major registries that kind of preside over the voluntary carbon market. So the Verified Carbon Standard is the largest. Then you have the Gold Standard, the Climate Action Reserve, and the American Carbon Registry. So those four markets will again really make sure that every carbon credit that is that is created comes from a verified, legitimate project. So companies will

will continue to rely on those registries. But there's going to need to be a channel of communication opened between some of these net zero initiatives that I've talked about, like the Science Based Targets initiative and Transformed to net

zero and some of these other corporate lead initiatives. There's going to need to be, you know, again an open channel of communication so that when a registry says that a carbon credit is permitted, that those net zero initiatives are made aware of that, and therefore they can go ahead and and basically put their seal of approval on a company achieving in net zero target um. So that's something, you know, a very important development that will need to

see in the market moving forward. Have you seen startups pop up, you know to either subcontract to these net zero initiatives or are the initiatives, you know, doing this in house or how's that going to work? No startups that are focused specifically on net zero. If you again, if you want to go back to the carbon markets, there's a lot of really exciting things happening to further

improve the measurability of carbon credits. So you know, if I plant that tree in that rainforest, actually you know, actively measuring how much carbon that tree is storing and also you know, making sure that that tree is still there ten years from now. UM. So you have really cool companies like Pachama UM that are looking at light R and SAT to like imagery and artificial intelligence and and all these emerging technologies two more actively measure carbon

storage within the in the carbon markets. UM. And then you also have a company like Nori that's awful offering very similar technology for the agriculture sector. So again, if you think of something like regenerative agriculture being able to actively measure carbon sequestration from those processes, that's what these startups are focused on. And I think you know again

they're those companies operate in the carbon markets. But the carbon markets are going to be so important for hitting a net zero goal that there's bound to be overlap, right. The other thing I would just highlight is there's gonna be a big reliance on on carbon capture technologies for companies to hit in net zero. So a great example is Occidental Petroleum, one of the big US oil majors. They set a really exciting and groundbreaking net zero target

just last week. The reason it's groundbreaking is because it addresses their Scope one and Scope twomissions, which actually come from their direct operations, but then it also includes their Scope three emissions and taking those down to zero. And one of the interesting parts of Occidentals announcement is they're taking what they call a contrarian approach to hitting their net zero goal um. And that means they're actually they're

not going to pivot away from fossil fuels at all. Um. They're gonna rely heavily on carbon capture and carbon removal technologies to hit that goal. Their their target ears is a ways away, right, it's not until so a lot can change between now and then. But I think a lot of companies are really, you know, putting a lot of money and betting a lot on carbon removal technologies like carbon capture utilization and storage coming within cost parity

in the next couple of years. Are you saying that differs from other oil and gas companies in that the other companies are pivoting away from oil and gas as a course strategy. Exactly, and and just for some backgrounds, so European oil majors have really lead when it comes to setting net zero targets. And you know, again this is kind of where this terminology issue comes into play.

In reality, most oil and gas companies are setting carbon neutral targets, so they're pledging to reduce their carbon emissions specifically from their own operations so their scope one in their scope to emissions. Again, you have leading European oil majors like Shell, Totel, VP any all these companies are are setting carbon carbon neutral targets for their scope one in scope to emissions. But you do have a handful of oil and gas companies that are also setting net

zero targets that address their scope three emissions. Um So, Equinor and Repsol are the two leading again European oil majors that have done this, and now you have Occidental um in the US that have done the same thing. Um So these companies are really kind of paving the way moving forward. But if you look at you actually look at how some of these companies plan on on achieving these goals. Yeah, Mark, like you mentioned, it's going to be a pivot away from their traditional core business.

So Shell, you know, has made you know, they've announced that they aim to be the world's largest power company in the next couple of years. And they've invested heavily in clean energy and electric vehicles and distributed energy UM and a bunch of other exciting areas. You know, bp UM has has said that they're going to be moving

away from oil entirely. And then you have a company like Total that two months ago they signed the largest corporate power purchase agreement, so they signed they signed an agreement to purchase three giga watts of solar power in Spain to offset their scope to emissions. UM in Total has a much broader renewable energy goal where they want to be a huge renewable energy developer as well, so

they want to sell power to utilities. So again, these companies are are really making holistic changes in the way they conduct business. I think that you know, the oil and gas sectors is going to be impacted in this way more than any other sector. Really, when I'm thinking about the net zero targets in the benieth that are announcing. You know, you previously mentioned about Amazon, and this has been a pretty big year for Amazon. COVID has meant

a lot more packages being delivered. And meanwhile, um, I think I did see that announcement just last week regarding some of their recent initiatives in the carbon space. So is that initiative something that's happening, you know, at a very senior level that you know, Jeff Bezos ultimately is handling very closely, or is it something that's kind of deeper within the rest of the business is being given

to the individual business units to handle. I think this is a thematic kind of internal area that we've that we've seen within corporations, and you know, it applies to Amazon, but it also applies to those oil and gas companies

that we were just talking about. Um. So just for some context, when the company sets a clean energy goal or a broader emission reductions target, you know, you need input from all different you know, various internal departments to achieve that goal, right, So you need to get your accounting department on board. You need data from your facilities team,

you need your PR team on board. But kind of the central team that is carrying out the sustainability strategy is your sustainability department, right um, and they're working with all these other departments in some way, shape or form. The key difference between a net zero target and these targets that I was just discussing is to your point in that you need executive leadership to carry out these

types of goals. So again, for a company that is heading is working on hitting in net zero target, that means that they're going to make need to make holistic changes in the way that they do business. So for the oil and gas sector, that means moving away from fossil fuels potentially. For utilities, that means moving into renewables. For tech that means offering more software and other products

to help their customers decarbonize. And all these types of huge changes that you know filter all the way down even to R and D and product those really can't be carried out unless you have executive level level leadership on board. Amazon is a great example of that. So they've developed this Climate Pledge initiative, but they also now

have this Climate Pledge fund. Right, it's this two billion dollar fund where they're going to invest directly in startups and other exciting technologies that are going to help companies achieve net zero and Jeff Bezos is intimately involved in that entire process. He just announced the first round last week, right exactly exactly, So having that executive level buying is really important. And we actually we looked at this in

our report. But I mentioned the Climate Action one hundred plus before, and that's investors that are pressuring their portfolio companies to decarbonize. And I realized this is a bit confusing, but within the Climate Action one hundred plus, the portfolio companies that are facing the most heat to decarbonize are these one hundred and sixty one companies that have been deemed as Focus companies, and they're considered to be the heaviest emitting companies in the world, So they're the ones

that are facing the heat from investors the most. And a lot of these companies have set in net zero targets. I mean if you kind of look company by company at those one hundred and sixty one Focus companies, over three quarters of those companies now have a board seat that is specifically focused around climate um So you now have board level representation that's thinking about planning and executing

on a sustainability strategy. So I think that right there is a is a testament to how important that executive level leadership is with sustainability in general. But I would say for net zero, it's it's not a nice to have, it's it's a requirement. With all of these net zero targets being made at the company level, I want to know whether or not this is going to make a big difference or a small difference if these companies actually do end up getting to their net zero targets in

the timelines that they outline. So if you look at the six leading European oil majors that have set a again a carbon neutral goal for their scope one in scope to emissions, so that's Shell, Totel, b Any, Repsol, and equinor for them to just reduce their Scope one and Scope two emissions, it would result in two hundred and sixty five million metric tons of c O two removed on an annual basis, and again very similar to

to Spain's annual missions. If you broaden that out and you look at the scope three emissions of the oil and gas sector, You're looking at several orders of magnitude more decarbonization from those six companies alone. So the impact is is huge. And just to throw out one more number here, so I mentioned those one hundred and sixty one focused companies that are outlined in the Climate Action

one hundred. So they actually they estimate that those companies, those one hundred and sixty one focused companies are responsible for eight of industrial missions in the world. So again, a huge amount of impact can be made by getting the private sector to set net zero targets. So like a lot of Spains, a lot of Spains, a lot of Spains, a lot of Frances I love, I love

my country comparisons. There you go. I guess I have one more question is this was a primery, this report, So if you haven't looked at it yet, everybody, please go look at it. It's really fantastic. What are the next questions or next reports you want to do in this in this theme? So I think the thing that will continue to do, at at a minimum in the short term is as new companies set net zero targets, which, like Danta mentioned, is at this point basically a weekly occurrence.

We want to continue to make those those company level comparisons. Again, for an investor, there's there's so much terminology, there's such little lack of regulation currently that it becomes very difficult for investors to compare these targets apples to apples. So I think, you know, one of the things that we want to continue to do is is look at these companies and see who's setting the most ambitious goal and

and why is that the case. I would say that the next kind of big thing that we're waiting for is again that that frameworker that methodology to be laid out by the Science Based Targets Initiative, because that's going to really kind of push this into hyper drive. It's going to expedite a lot of companies to start making these goals and them again, it's gonna go along wayne kind of creating and standardizing targets. So those are kind

of the main things. And then I would just highlight in the report, we look at the ways that leading tech companies, materials companies, utilities, and oil and gas companies can achieve their targets right, because it's it's different for

every single sector. But I would just add that, of course, you know a lot of the research that BNF does on the technology side and our forecasts, UM, a lot of that plays really well into the strategies and the thought processes of companies that have set in the zero target, and they're gonna need to rely on a lot of

the things that be NF writes about. So that's something that will continue to monitor as well as as technology costs come down, things like carbon credits get boosts and legitimacy, all those types of things are prompts for us to continue to look into this more Peppered throughout the report, you have several mini tables that include leaders in laggards and each sector. Should we expect to see some rankings coming.

I would certainly love to do that. I will say even making those tables alone was very difficult, and I think we did have to leave the important caveat under each of these tables that all these companies really are technically leaders, right UM, And when we call a company a laggerate here, they're a laborate among the again eight or nine oil and gas companies that are setting a carbon neutral goal, or the five big tech companies that are really kind of trailblazing here. Um, so I think

that's important to do. But yeah, I think I think it's essential again for investors and sustainability professionals to get a better idea of if I look at five targets, which of these is the best and which of these is the worst. And I think that we are you know, BNF is well positioned to make a statement on that. Kyle, Thanks for joining us. Happy, happy to talk to you guys. Today's episode of Switched On was edited by Rex Warner with Grace Stoke Media. Bloombergnia F is a service provided

by Bloomberg Finance LP and its affiliates. This recording does not constitute, nor should it be construed as investment advice, investment recommendations, or a recommendation as to an investment or other strategy. Bloombergenia should not be considered as information sufficient

upon which to base an investment decision. Neither Bloomberg Finance LP nor any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this recording, and any liability as a result of this recording. Did express the disclaim