Episode 6 | Rory Sullivan: ESG backlash - what’s real and what isn’t?

The Transition Tames, Transition Tames with Hugh Wheelham, the podcast for the people making finance sustainable and financing sustainability. Welcome back to the Transition Tames, the podcast for serious debate on green and sustainable finance and much more. We really get to know our guests by talking about the books they read, the music they listen to, and any advice they might have for people in the sustainable sustainability and sustainable finance fields. So, looking forward to that later on. Thanks for joining us. My name is Hugh Wheelham. I'm an award-winning finance journalist and media entrepreneur specialising in green finance, ESG, and sustainability. And the Transition Tapes is brought to you in partnership with the International Sustainable Finance Centre, the ISF Siege, the think tank that helps financial institutions, investors and policymakers integrate sustainability into strategy and practice. And today, we bring to you what is our 20, 25, 20, 26 new year episode of the Transition Tapes. And I've tentatively called that ESG Reasons to Be Cheerful in homage to the Ian Jury in the blockhead song called Reasons to Be Cheerful Part 3. I've no idea why it's called Part 3. I must look that up now that I see it. And to get somewhat cheerful with us today, we have one of those cheerful people in the industry, a man who regularly showers me with constructive criticism for being a negative journalist. Dr. Rory Sullivan, CEO and co-founder of Chronos Sustainability is an internationally recognised expert on climate change, human rights and sustainable finance. He's been in the field for well over 30 years with experience in both the public and private sectors on all of these issues, including 15 years in investment management. He's also written more books on sustainable business and finance than I can count. And he reads a whole lot more, which we will come to later on in the podcast. Rory, it's great to have you on the podcast today. How you doing? I'm good. Thank you. How are you? Good. I'm all right. Yeah, not too bad. Good to have you here. Now, the context for this podcast is the whole ESG pushback. And I think probably that most people accept that if we're going to transition to a more sustainable economy, then we need policymakers, companies and investors grappling with the sustainability challenges our time, which I mean, those challenges are pretty well documented. So I don't think we need to go into too much of that today. But we've been, as most people will know, on the receiving end of a huge pushback, initially out of the US, both legal and political challenges to sustainable finance, the Trump administration since then has I think probably gone full-bore, anti-woke and ESG has clearly been lumped in with that and is getting smacked around quite a bit. And we're also seeing a good portion of blowback of that here in Europe. Now, we know there's a lot of negativity around on ESG. And we know about that pushback from the US, etc, etc. But the question that we're going to look at to begin with today is whether we're missing the bigger picture on progress. And some of us who've been around in this area for far too long will remember when we used to be the sort of the last panel on any investment conference, or Rory will remember those well. But we've actually come a long way. I wanted to ask Rory what he feels the progress that's been made in the field is rather than just looking at the sort of negativity that we can get bogged down. And Rory, where do you sort of see the positive elements of how things are developing in sustainability and sustainable finance? I think we're, I always envisage progress as being two steps forward, one step back. And I think we're in a one step back phase at the moment. But that one step back has been occasioned by a range of factors. It is what happens. The challenge we've seen happens when something starts becoming mainstream and when it starts having an influence. So the first thing I would say is my first positive message is this is happening because responsible investment or sustainable finance has moved to a point where it actually does influence investment decisions and where investors are capable of articulating why sustainability is important and why companies and other actors need to act on it. So the first thing is it is difficult, but it is difficult because sustainable finance has matured into a mainstream investment activity and investment discipline. So your sense is we've arrived and we've arrived at a point where we're actually we're having real effect and therefore the pushback has come as a result of that. I think so. It doesn't mean that we've succeeded. I mean, I think there is, and we would probably talk about areas where we need to improve. But the first thing is the nature of the pushback is the pushback you get when you're mainstream. 10 years ago, as you will remember, the pushback to sustainable finance was, you know, sandal wearing vegan hippies. You know, or these issues are not material, or are you just advancing in that kind of agenda? I mean, they were the, and I guess those, those who were advancing those concerns were dismissive being, not being investment professionals, not knowing what they were talking about. That's not the critique we're facing anymore. The challenge now is much more about are these issues material? What does acting and concert mean? What are your duties and investors? So it's a completely different challenge, which reflects where we've come to. You asked me when we were preparing for this, you to start with positive. So I racked my brain and came up with a few. So I mean, I would say that over the past decade, what have we seen? We have seen lots of major collaborations, not just collaborations and issues that are pretty relevant to business, but collaboration and working together on issues that really matter to companies, times actually 100 plus, which is focusing on high-emission companies that are green as cost emissions, the work of the global investor commission of mining 2030, which is talking about the social environmental responsibilities of the mining of the mining industry. So we have seen collaborations not on the trivial, not very important or not very expensive issues, but on major issues of business trustee. We have seen most investors' word of their name, invest significant resources in integration, our integration of social environmental considerations into investment decision making, and there's a fluency amongst investment professions about where and how these issues are financially relevant, and equally importantly where and when they're not financially relevant. We have seen growth in regulation and standards, clarification of producer duties, disclosure requirements, etc. We have seen asset owners in particular starting to step up and articulate what they want of their investment managers as their agents and the investment chain, and I'm also a bit of a fan of when the tide goes out, you see who's not wearing their underwear, and I actually think one of the most exciting things of the last year or two has been actually now that the heat has come on, which organisations are really committed to this and are looking to institutionalize it, and who are bluffers? So which organisations have got their undies on, and which haven't, okay? When you I'm a modest man, so I would just say I covered my eyes and tried not to. Fair enough, Rory, just to push back on that a bit, I mean we've seen a couple of the big investor collaborations, the net zero asset management, net zero banking initiatives, crumble in a really short space of time under pressure. Does that suggest that we're not, I'd be interested in knowing what you think that does suggest. I mean were those initiatives the wrong kinds of initiatives, or were they so serious that pushback was really intense? What's your sense of why those big initiatives collapse so quickly? It seemed to go from a bit of pressure to collapse in no time. I think there were different issues. One is I think that a number of them were just where everybody piled in and signed up. I think one of the big mistakes, I think many industry at many industry have made is they've made commitments without thinking about can they achieve them. So making that zero commitment without being explicit about how that depends on energy policy, energy security, other matters. I think what we are seeing is not so much a a collapse of but a properly thinking and perhaps the thinking that should have happened earlier, which is what are these aiming to do? How are they going to work? How do they sort of enable investors to deliver on their short and long-term obligations to their members or beneficiaries or clients? I think the reworking of the Net Zero Asset Banders initiative is a very good example, it means that for consultation at the moment but essentially it says the signatories are committed to Net Zero or achieving the goals of our agreement. So that's a very strong commitment. The particular commitments they make are qualified by acknowledging their duties, their clients, the constraints imposed them by regulation etc. And there's an expectation that they would be completely honest about what they're doing. So they can say we commit to Net Zero for this part of our asset base. You can then as a stakeholder assigned decide what does the Net Zero commitment mean? How is it defined? Is it what you want and is it reasonable to apply it to that proportion of your asset? So I think it's a maturing and a reframing in a way which is actually really healthy. I think ambitious commitments have that value in framing but I think they can often paralyze practical action and actually what we need is something that is ambitious and that drives change. And I personally think the reframing of those and in some cases they probably need to be disbanded and started again and I think the conclusion I would take is it's a bit painful but it's a necessary reframing. I don't see it as being giving up our assigned a failure. It's a sign of maturity that we can have these discussions with okay we need to rethink it. Let's be clear about why we are doing this and going back to the points we started with the why and how you do something as a mainstream proposition I that applies to the heart of your decision making is inevitably and necessarily quite different to what you do if it's just a tiny part of your assets are of it speaking to you know to let's say a very green constituency so I mean it's painful it's not easy and of course it gets sort of used as a stick to be the industry with but I just think it's what we needed to do as part of growing up and these are growing pains that happen as as we become mainstream and you know sort of the step back in the pushback is that necessary growing pain to institutionalize these things as part of mainstream investment practice. And just briefly, what would you say the lessons learned from those are they on good collaboration? What should good collaboration look like and how should it be focused because we sort of made a big balls up there in a sense that these big collaborations came out there was a lot of fanfare around the middle. You dare your words not mine so let's just and don't delete that from the recording. I know I think what is happening and I think actually some of the leading asset owners are starting to get here but this so we are moving it towards where asset owners need to go back to Tarsir and what their purpose is. So why does an asset owner or an organization exist? So you know it is something like to deliver on the pension's promise or to deliver on the commitments to members or clients. So that's the purpose. Those organizations face a range of external pressures and you and you've alluded to many of them you know the SD back lash I guess Russia's invasion of Ukraine what that does the energy markets you know I guess the the number of wars and conflicts we're dealing with. So they all affect their ability to deal with that. I think a modern conception of responsive investment is it is the strategy or set of strategies that you use to manage and mitigate those risks. So it's the risk to your objective of delivering a pension's promise. The answer is risk management is responsive investment. So that is do you take care of these issues in your processes? Do you engage to mitigate risks? Do you work with policy makers, design better regulation? Do you avoid certain risks? So I think what we are seeing is responsive investment is no longer a thing you do just to save the planet. I think saving the planet and delivering positive social environment outcome is integral to how you deliver on your organization part. But I think that's reframing. It's a big boy territory. This is this is what you do when you really want to have influence. I hear you roar. I mean the pushback on that of course is that you know institutional investors are there to make money in complicated markets which you like to think are a longer term but actually are a sort of series of short terms. That's often that the kind of and in fact that's actually that's even being tested in the US now as part of the pushback. You may not be able to make as much money as a relative investment if you are looking for sustainability at the core of what you're doing. How do you sort of tease apart that debate? It's a bit sort of long-term ism short-termism. It kind of is and I think of course we could spend hours on long-term versus short-term but I don't think our listeners are very very long-term. Possibly not. We'll give it quick. Let's give it good. But maybe let me let me let me answer a slightly different question which I think goes to which is given where we are how do we make progress. So are there and I'm talking very much within the boundaries of what we know is going on you know the the work being led by organizations like PRI and others and by asset owners. So very clearly asset owners sit to talk the investment chain what they demand of their asset managers sets the terms for what happens in Indian investment industry. It's very simplistic. So I think what we're seeing is we're seeing a number talking about are asking for long-term mandates and encouraging long-term thinking in the investment industry. Are they actually doing that role? Sorry I don't mean to jump in but I think the leaders are you know you look at the Charging Appensions Board, Brunelle, the AP Fund and PGGM, APD. I do think there is quite a significant number who I would describe as deserved credit for being long-term investors and for behaving in that way but I think there are two caveats and this is this is my first point. So the first caveat is that sometimes the leaders are running too far ahead of what the market can do so they're ambitious but they're not necessarily thinking about what others can do and I think the second is that and this is a probably a role for organization like PRI is that many asset owners do not yet have the capacity of resources to follow that agenda. So I would say the leaders are the kinds of organizations we would like to see in the investment space. There probably aren't enough of them and we need to work out how to bridge others up. So I would say there are good practice examples. There is a leadership cohort. We need to make sure leadership is seen as relevant to everyone or some majority and then we need to try and bring the others with us. So I think we start we talk with two sides of the same coin. Your challenge is right but I think actually it's not implausible to say actually make sure the leadership agenda is relevant, bring asset owners along and encourage them along and add more assertively support them. I think part of the equation may be great to hear your view on this as well. I know you've got a few more points to get make but obviously regulation and policy, the idea and many of us were hugely optimistic whether the EU was starting its major regulatory drive which is complicated in itself and I don't want to get into the but let's just look at the at the direction of travel of that. It was designed to underpin if you like that kind of sustainability thinking alongside financial relevance and to offer a trajectory a sort of pathway for change and therefore as an investor you can say to your asset manager listen the reason we want you to focus on these issues is not only that are they societally important but actually regulation is demonstrating the businesses are going to change over a time frame where you can look at this through a risk return lens as our financial representative have we got to that that sort of duality or not yes and no I mean unfortunately the my answer is sort of of of course compromised by what's happened within the EU and the weekening of the omnibus regulation and so forth but I think intellectually yes I think we have we've reached a policy around the relationship between and the differences between financial materiality and environmental significance or you know double materiality thing I think the problem is that that policy of thinking has got sort of swamped a bit by what's regulation going to be and will it will it drive things forward but I think we as an industry have got finally got there and we understand that some stuff is financial material some stuff isn't and that's okay and some stuff is a short term or longer term advice or something that's okay but I do think so my second point which which you've basically paraphrased for me sorry about that no no no no no it's very helpful because it's just that we need to be clear about what we're talking about and what's financial and financial material and over what time frame and what isn't and being realistic enough to accept that some stuff that isn't financial material will never be and also that some stuff that's financial relevant say may not be tomorrow but I think that I find responsive investment sustainable finance for Australian because that lack of clarity of thinking around what are we talking about and the blurring of terms between like materiality and people are not defining if they integrate rigor actually undermines us and I think as an industry we've it's been convenient to appeal to materiality and produce, but actually I think it's incumbent on us start using those terms with a degree of discipline. Who's actually doing that work Rory to sort of if you like to get this is a big frustration with a lot of people around the whole responsible investment world and even the terminology may be problematic there but about whether the sort of arguments are clearly defined and the theory of change or however you want to label it is clear enough you know I know that this is all this is really complicated but we sort of need more of a road map I feel anyway but maybe it sort of happens of its own volition to some extent. Some of it does and sometimes it clarifies but but you're honestly you I just think everybody is doing economics 101 I find it incredible that you know for example tcfd advances solution to time change or tcfd was very useful but like it is the hammer nail things like if I own a hammer every problem looks like a nail and if time of change is a market failure of the around externalities are lack of pricing where does disclosure fit into that and I think as an industry I would say I'm not sure is an easy answer to the challenge you raised right so everybody needs to start with economics 101 why do markets failure you know monopolies competition issues principle agent problems information symmetries boundary rationality externalities all the rest of it let's start there and just go back to those terms most of the issues we're dealing with can be described in those terms and most solutions be it public policy solutions or volunteerism or other measures fall into that and I think that would clarify a lot as I find it deeply deeply frustrating that people start talking about systemic risk and you can't and I think it's not material and actually you know maybe maybe less than two beyond economics 101 is finance 101 people got non-diverse viable nonsense lots of this stuff is diverse survival away and lots of it can be avoided so the sloppiness of arguments around universal ownership which is like bad economics and bad finance thrown into a melting pot of verbiage is not helping us move forward because it's not giving the which I think you serve essentially a point it's not giving us the clarity of let's describe our problem precisely and then we can design our define interventions or solutions that are actually going to be effective not things that make us feel good yeah I felt a little bit like that with the EU regulations which I think are one of my frustrations is that you're right you have to define the problems and then you have to think quite clearly and cleverly about the kinds of market influences and solutions that can be applied that will actually start to work on those issues over a time frame that is palatable to changing businesses you know that again that's sort of big big speak but but you do have to be quite clever about the way that's done and we seem to have ended up with a very sort of top down bureaucratic approach to something which maybe needed some smarter bottom-up thinking about incentivization of companies outsmart regulation all of these things I wonder you know but your point is well taken I think that we need to get we need a lot of people to get back to sort of finance 101 yeah and on that you I mean I think your often bad policy is a consequence of bad analysis you know what you've defined as I don't know not taking public emphasis or not take your account of capital cycles capital investment cycles within industry when's the best point to get a homeowner to invest in I don't know loft insulation or whatever it's when he or she is replacing the roof or when he or she is doing home renovations because you do it all at once so and businesses are saying business have capital investment cycles why do innovations or efficiencies not get tied to that so I think there is something around but I think if you're out it comes down to we're not describing the problem's equity we're not thinking about solutions that go with the grain of decision making and I mean of course there's a problem which is the idea that you you have pragmatic solutions or that you stage and intervene over time runs counter to a bit of an absolutious view which which also drowns out more sensible measures within the policy space so I think we've got a problem my immediate solution is economics 101 finance 101 design regulatory interventions and all recommendations to demonstrate how they reflect economic incentives and how finance works I think we'd end up with progress in a lot of areas not maybe not an absolute ban on greenhouse gas emissions but much more rapid progress in a way that goes the grain of decision making and which I think then aligns with fiduciary juicy and and also delivers real impact but I think we as an industry really have to up our game and it starts with our understanding of the problems we're trying to fix you mentioned a fiduciary duty issue and this is a complicator I'd love to know your views because I have a bit of trouble on on this one I have to say I can't recall anyone ever coming to me and saying the reason we don't do something is because of fiduciary duty you know the reason we don't think about sustainability in our investment analysis is because we're hampered by fiduciary duty but maybe it's just the way that I think about it and you know maybe there's different ways of thinking about fiduciary duty it's one of those terms that sort of thrown around in the sustainable finance world as if it's going to solve a big problem if we get fiduciary duty right we'll be able to do x or y or z what's your view on this debate if you if you have one I'll review that's a very good question I mean my view is that fiduciary duty understood properly creates positive duties on you to do certain things to be aware of risk to manage those proactively in the interests of your client or beneficiary I mean I think that's that's fairly clear where I think people have fallen over on fiduciary duty is the major commitments without thinking about how does this affect the the mission or the or the the job I've got to do so if you're a long-term investor you should be able to say by doing x policy engagement or engagement companies this is how I take risk of table this how I manage it so I think what's happened has been fiduciary duty has been used probably like meetings as a bit of a either a blanket objection to progress or a bit of a catch all of course it's aligned our fiduciary duty and long-termism but without actually doing the analytical work that underpins us and I mean my view is and I guess I'm going back to the 2019 work I did with PRI and the generation foundation of fiduciary duty fiduciary duty is defined by do you deliver on your goals you've interests your clients in hand does the line of market practice is the evidence you should act on a particular thing the argument for certainly for a PRI or even an ambitious PRI principles aligned definition of responsibility is compelling I don't see it as a barrier but I understand it gets waived around as an excuse to slow progress but I would also say I'm not sure many investors have done the work of saying our response to investment strategy how does it deliver on our fiduciary duties that's going to be key as well in the states isn't it because you know legal challenges are starting to say you say you think you should take these sustainability factors into consideration in your investment policy or why yeah so that analysis is going to be is going to be key I wanted to come back to you on the on the ESG backlash worry because I'm sort of interested in your view on what it actually is you mentioned earlier that we were arriving at a point of seriousness in the whole sustainable finance realm if you like I think the recognition was that these were issues that are challenges for society and that my sense was that investors are a key part of response to that challenge however you formulate that but we've been hit by this sort of Mike Tyson punch in the face that everyone's got a great plan until you get smacked in the chops it's political of course but watch your view of what it is and how to counter it I think it it mirrors that the last point we're talking about which is as an investor as an asset owner as an asset manager whatever your job is you just need to explain why what you do is the way in which why and how that creates the the value the financial other for the people you're trying to serve so I think that it starts there I think a lot of people got taken aback because they hadn't done the work so does analysis of the ESG issues what benefit does that give your investment now is that searching for opportunities or is it taking risk of table similarly with engagement or stewardship similarly with you know voting so so I think a lot of this is there was this shouty challenge so one is the shouty challenge is designed to intimidation silence particularly in the US I think that that's where I think over here outside the US I think people just haven't been prepared for that level of of assertiveness in challenging what they're doing and they have sort of haven't got the work done or have not had the confidence say well actually this is what we stand for here's why it has value so I think every guy a bit shocked and they got the punch but they're now back in the corner and the mouth guards out the trainers spraying water all over their face in fact come on guys the challenges are pretty fierce one isn't it it's basically your your anti-business and your anti-democratic and I think people have been rocked by those allegations and and we need to I feel like we need a response to that in a sense that okay so let me give you the response so are you seriously saying so I imagine I'm an institution investor or something are you seriously saying that I should run investment process and that you know that includes investment analysis you know factor analysis engagement with the things I invest in and not to take account of the governance of the entities I invest in the way which they manage costs like times such a way to manage risk are you seriously saying I should just pretend that none of those things matter to my investment because that's that is the counter now it's fine for some investors who may say they aren't because you know they're very short term or they're quant or you know passive investors can make an argument that some aspects may not be what they need to do so I get that but are you seriously saying that a grown-up investor in 21st century would willfully and deliberately exclude the you know if you go pure Michael Porter fan you know a pestle analysis like four or five of the major drivers of value and risk that he that investors should ignore those in their investment decision making I mean I just I even if I wasn't a sustainability person I would find that hard to defend how dependent is that Rory on what type of investor they are I mean one of the you're right I mean you you made the point yourself actually that you know we tend to deal with intergenerational long-term institutional investors I think you could make the arguments quite clearly there but the question is how much of the market is that and and what kind of effect they can have on the market sometimes when you know I was reading a piece earlier looks at who actually is the market yeah and you realize that's a small part of the market in a sense these days not not as big as you think it is anyway I just wondered because the pushback is well that that's for policymakers to do isn't it resolve these kind of problems and once they have you know it'll be obvious that you your investment should fall in line I don't think that's correct too so policymakers can if they choose correct negative externalities climate damage or whatever if you are an investor your job is to look at the world and go what could affect my ability to deliver my objectives I would say for any investor it's climate risk you know because governments regulate etc so I'm going to be looking at going there's opportunities there are risks and are these risks that I want my companies to be exposed to so you end up going how do you create values and investor value understand this of course and maybe act in it you work with companies to ensure that they're not carrying unnecessary climate risk and you say well policy makers are moving in this direction it's in our interest that policy is well designed thoughtful stage and measured up long term so the argument that you would ignore as are the markets driven by others are the rely on policy makes doesn't doesn't really stand up policy makers will shape us but you are a market architecture and have to respond to the incentives and the dysfunctions of the policy the policy space do you think rory just on that last point you're right I mean usually the crystallization of these issues is a result of policy over time yeah are sustainable sustainably minded investors doing enough to think about how they can work around that policy environment because you can easily make the argument on the other side for investors that they will they will want to ignore those issues because you know there is more money to be made by not intervening in problems societal problems and that's one that's regularly trotted out I'm not sure I mean of course there's a lot of talk around systemic stewardship and all that stuff but it sort of feels to me that it's like investors are handing responsibility for managing the problem over to policy makers and yes ultimately many of these problems we rely on policy interventions to correct them or mitigate them but actually investors irrespective of what happens in policy still have to manage and steward the assets they're charged with so I think systemic stewardship is interesting and welcome and and so on I I find it's framing going back to the points we made earlier about economics 101 and finance 101 system risk 101 is the next thing people need to look at and understand what are you looking at can you rewrite policy makers given that the policy process as we know is generally slow sub optimal be a policy makers don't necessarily reach the outcome you want high risk of being overturned by subsequent governments subject to all of those you have subject to legal challenges etc so so the idea that we fix everything by appealing to policy makers is tremendously naive and it seems to entertain many of the reports I've read in systemic stewardship last year fair enough I think that's well argued just talk to us about how you see progress being made by investors on on that kind of both economics 101 and thinking about their role in I guess sort of capacity building for themselves for you know for their role within the market talk to us about how you how you see that I actually think that's been something that's been done quite well and it's good continuing to be I mean I think we should give organizations like PRI a lot of credit for that for bringing creating a space where investors can work together and I mean you know it's easy to criticize PRI but actually I think that role of capacity building knowledge sharing and sort of encouraging the marketers a whole to move has been really important I think probably gone back to discussion we had earlier acid owners probably need to try and provide greater incentives to encourage people to move and need to try and bring their industry peers with them so I think there's there's a lot to be done but I feel like we have a set of structure that said PRIs once I think on climate the IIGCC and and others have done a great job there's some very good collaborations and other issues so I think we've done it we at least know how to do this well I say I think the big issue is many acid owners don't have the resources they need to play that role and I think that's probably the area that we collectively need to try and work on and if acid owners aren't going to resource up is there a way to shortcut or simplify the things they do like not simplify investment mandates or have investment concerns provide different types of advice or whatever the answer is to allow us to make progress it but I do think for this industry I think building capacity and knowledge has been one of the great success stories we should give people credit for those how would we build that further rory because you're right I mean acid owners are not necessarily resourcing this at a level that some people might want and then as a result asset managers are sort of hesitant it seems and we you know we know that we've we've been on the back end of a lot of layoffs in the industry after after it must be said a huge ramp up of hires on the back of sort of regulatory ramp up as well so we're in a we're in a strange zone it seems where we know I get the sense actually that a lot of the issues that that investors are thinking around particularly around climate actually and energy transition are more salient than they've ever been yeah require more analysis for the future of companies and that can be startup companies growth companies listed companies I can't think of a time where I've thought it's more important to understand the trajectory of those companies within a happening energy transition for example and yet we don't seem to have so much happening though or maybe I'm wrong maybe there's a lot happening on sort of behind the scenes it's hard it's hard to work out I'm I'm a little bit a loss of the moment I have to say it's difficult to but I I don't know because I think you'd have to survey every asset owner in every organization but my sense is there is an appetite to learn the say pure eye and the sustainable investment for another organization they're doing a last phrase reach the asset managers are doing a lot of capacity building with their clients I think there is a resourcing problem and I'm not sure how to fix that but a lot of the other elements and the twos and guidance are are there so to me it feels like we just need to keep plugging on and I said I think I'm going back to a point I made earlier trying to bring more asset owners into the tent and that's that's discussing the future I think the the work the PRI is doing there is it is important we'll see how that pans out I wanted to come back to you actually I would come to you on a point that I think is is interesting because I know you don't quite a bit of work in this area but the whole impact investing trend it was sort of hot to troll a few years back a lot of people were talking about impact but we seem to have lost a little bit of the emphasis on that and I wondered what your thoughts were on why that's been the case if if that is the case I mean but my personal view and impact is it's it's in a ghetto and it's never really tried to get out of it I think that I think you know the impact investment community is quite comfortable being a fairly small niche of mainstream investment practice and you know it's got it's a lovely community very interesting war you know and it's growing but I suppose my sense is the real challenge we face is how do mainstream investors respond to the sustainability challenges because that's where most the money is impact can show us the art of the possible and you know provide space for innovation etc but I don't see that the impact investment community has really made the effort it needs to make to speak to the mainstream investment industry and it remains to invest in industry yeah it wants a little bit of exposure to that but it's not inherently interested enough to move towards them so I think if the impact community wants to be taken seriously it's got to to decide once a dance with the mainstream investment community but I think at the moment I think it's in a neglected and nobody really cares that much about us they interesting okay we'll leave it there on that thanks for your your input on on all of those topics where it's great to hear if you want that transition tape you're listening to the transition tapes with Hugh Wheeler but I wanted to talk about something which people may or may not be aware of but this is the Rory Sullivan book pile measure indicative of the number of books that you like to read in the year tell us about tell us what it is it's something I've seen on on LinkedIn it looks like a pile of books that are on the height of a Rory Sullivan but fill us in more that's a very good summary of it Hugh okay I mean the whole book reading came I mean obviously I read a lot I think during maybe during Covid I was kind of you know on LinkedIn I was going because I wonder what you'd be interested in the stuff I'm reading you know which is a mix of fiction and non-fiction and then I think somebody asked like how many books do you read and I said well I've never really counted so so I just started counting them or you know collecting them over a year and then and then I told but that's quite impressive I wonder how you describe books you know so in the first year it was number of books and then I thought oh well I mean I can see how tall they go it's like like your measurement on the wall how high I've been yeah it was a little bit and then somebody asked me I think I've been Sharon would lock then asked me um I Sharon McLean I'm sorry we said oh like how many books by female authors do you read none but I don't know so Hugh let me let me bring it back to the topic do you or so it's the same for fine so the Sullivan of books which is essentially my height they are the number of me in height of books I read during year okay that is a subjective measure so it's it's objective because I I have a objective measure with a tape measure and I can check my height so so it can be checked in validation is it meaningful well not necessarily because it depends on do I read lots of tin volumes paperback versus hardback I must say if you want to max yourself in a book's number you read hardbacks with big prints you do you just get those ones with the big words with a big print you're right more more over our book I you turning 21 of your specialties conjuring books so that's it war has been I'd worry that I like that but listen tell us what kinds of books do you read what what do you like to read are you reading fiction mostly or or history or what do you know no so it's half and half roughly so I'm on fiction I tend to read modern literature crime thrillers and the occasional classic and then I don't tend to read science fiction romantic literature stuff like that so I think on fiction I've I've got a fairly good sense of what's happening in literary fiction and yeah the the crime no no science fiction or romance Rory you just know me no no no in a world of AI I might be there's too much there's too much romance and sci-fi already in your life yeah bar humbug indeed I've listened to you we've got your top 10 list of tunes that that you want to have in your playlist and I thought this was a really nice soundtrack you put together we've got it's actually called the soundtrack to writing books and I think you mentioned that it was these were songs that you stick on when you've got writers block yeah obviously to kind of to sort of get the juices flower you've got bronxkey beats small town boy radiohead fake plastic trees number two and then you go through to garbage and black eyed peas ed Sheeran even the weekend Harry Styles great playlist but tell us about what I mean you turn to music when things are getting tough on the on the writing side of the actually I probably need to explain the playlist because when I did the first draft of it it was all between like 1984 and 1988 you know it had like classic I'm Frankie Gosta Hollywood was there the rhythmics like 17 songs by the rhythmics the bronxkey beats have you tried to update your playlist to make you make you look hip and relevant worries that when I try I then realized well actually you know there is more to me than the mid eighties and then I just started because then I told well actually it really depends on what I'm doing because then I you know as like I thought oh should I have Irish classic like the songs that get everybody dancing as an Irish disco and then I went oh that's you too you know Sunday bloody Sunday and without your depogues or the crime breeze etc or I could kind of go for I'm not going through a Japanese minimalist phase at the moment oh we all out we all aren't we all so so I kind of stopped like so the idea of a top 10 of anything a top 10 list just didn't work and then I thought oh well if I do the songs that and and each of them has at a various points you know I can almost tie to the book or like the bronxkey beat was I think revising my leaving certificate god I had a phase of listening to cold play when I was writing my oh dear that's an excuseable I like I like predictably predictably analysis driven Rory your choice of 10 tunes but we'll we'll put this the soundtrack to writing books will be attached to the podcast I wanted to just finish Rory with just asking you whether what kind of advice you've been given by anyone during your career that sticks out in your mind things that you've heard maybe people just said this will probably don't think about that think about this and also what advice you might give to other people in this whole sustainability field yeah well so Hugh you asked me a different question in the prep for this you said what's the advice you wish somebody had given you oh you wish that you're right that's true so that's the answer I'm going to give you so the answer to that is you have a voice user okay you know the idea that in the face of the issue backlash we said state we say silent is not acceptable we are here to fight we are here to make a difference if you think that head down hopefully nobody will notice me and then I'd be fine in two or three years time if that's your attitude you shouldn't be doing your job and we need others stepping and I guess the other part of that is I mean of course we've heard a lot about the how difficult it is working in sustainability this is this is a response to what advice would you give people it if this is tough you know the kind of work we are trying to do you're trying to affect change in how companies run their business trying to change public policy you're trying to stand up to the deniers and naysayers is really difficult okay that means we of course need to to make sure that we are just emotionally and psychologically and physically resilient and you have to do it but I do think there is something for all of us say it's basically if you can't stand the heat get out the kitchen this is a really tough time yes we can look after ourselves and do it but I also think it's incumbent on us to step up and to be to know for tough enough and again if we're not we should let others do so mine mine or not in the self have feel good about yourself now that he's yeah I think that I think that's important actually you know it's tough out there you know we've been pushed around seriously and we need to be able to stand up for for what we believe in and we need to be robust about how we put those arguments together you're absolutely right you know and this is definitely a time to stand up and be counted as you have done today Rory thank you very much indeed for being on the transition tapes great to have you here by pleasure thanks to you all for tuning in and we will well we'll send you off with Rory's top 10 soundtrack to writing books to listen to after this thanks very much thanks again to Rory we'll see you soon on the next issue of the transition tapes thanks goodbye the transition tapes the transition tapes with Hueley River was produced by the International Sustainable Finance Center thank you for listening