Transcript provided by Kensho.

Lindsey Hall: Hi. I am Lindsey Hall, Head of Thought Leadership at S&P Global Sustainable1.

Esther Whieldon: And I am Esther Whieldon a senior writer on the Sustainable1 thought leadership team.

Lindsey Hall: Welcome to ESG Insider, an S&P Global podcast where Esther and I take you inside the environmental social and governance issues that are shaping the rapidly evolving sustainability landscape.

Carbon markets made big headlines at COP29 that’s the UN’s annual climate change conference, which was held in Baku Azerbaijan in 2024. At COP29, parties finalized key rules and guidelines for international carbon trading under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement on climate change after several years of negotiations. We did a deep dive into carbon markets right after COP29 and in a series earlier in 2024, and will include links to those episodes in our show notes. In those interviews, we heard why carbon markets will be a big focus in 2025.

Esther Whieldon: And as a quick reminder, carbon markets are trading systems where carbon credits can be bought and sold to offset emissions. Countries and companies can use them to lower their carbon emissions by purchasing carbon credits for projects designed to remove, avoid or reduce emissions.

We're going to go a bit more in depth into the workings of carbon markets in this week's episode. S&P Global Commodity Insights held a conference in Barcelona on the very topic of carbon markets in December 2024. And our regular podcast contributor, Jennifer Laidlaw, was in attendance. Jennifer is a senior writer on the thought leadership team at S&P Global Sustainable1. So Jennifer, good to have you back.

Esther Whieldon: What can you tell us about the conference?

Jennifer Laidlaw: Well, thanks for having me. So the conference has become an annual event. And this year, it was very timely given the outcome for carbon markets in COP29. Article 6 was the term on everyone's lips. One of the keynote speakers was Dexter Lee, Head of Carbon Markets Negotiation at the U.K. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. He explained how decisions at COP29 would enable climate mitigation and facilitate finance flows, particularly to developing countries.

He also talked about the U.K. government's launch of principles for voluntary carbon and nature market integrity during COP29. These encourage users of carbon markets to measure and disclose the use of credits as part of sustainability reporting, among other things. There was also a panel discussion on Article 6.2 and 6.4 of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

We heard how these articles will impact the development of carbon-related projects and the potential challenges in aligning domestic policies with international carbon market frameworks. Just for a quick recap, parties at COP29 finalized rules on Article 6.2, which sets out a system of national accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and Article 6.4, which establishes a framework for UN global carbon market.

I had the opportunity of sitting down with one of the participants, Andrea Bonzanni, Director of International Policy at the International Emissions Trading Association. That's a nonprofit that works with companies on developing carbon strategies to reduce emissions. He mentioned during the panel that COP29 was a vote of confidence for the carbon markets. And I asked him to explain why. You hear him mention ETS, that's an emissions trading system.

Andrea Bonzanni: So the vote of confidence provided by COP29 will probably help countries implement domestic frameworks to use carbon markets A lot of the countries that are potential sellers into these markets, we're waiting for finalization of the talks to make decisions regarding the involvement in the market and the domestic framework.

We've also seen more buyers being involved. We know about Japan, Korea, Singapore, Switzerland. We've also seen Norway and Sweden being very active at COP29. So I expect that activity to continue and scale in the next few years. There's a lot of work being done on domestic markets and in some of the largest economies and some of the emerging economies where the growth in emissions is expected in the next few years.

So Brazil, during COP29, finally passed its legislation on a domestic market. We have India also working on a domestic market. and Indonesia that has a domestic ETS for the coal power plants. They had an election at the end of last year, presidential inauguration recently. So we expect a change in policy.

So we're watching very closely these large countries and how the domestic markets will interact with the international one. So I think fragmentation is inevitable, but markets can deal quite well with complexity. Markets can be good at pricing differences and working with arbitrage opportunities.

I think we should also see complexity as an opportunity. There will be different mechanisms for different type of projects, countries implementing different policies and carving different role for markets than others. I think at IETA, we're proud of being the interface between the private sector and governments and carbon markets.

So we will provide the collective view of the private sectors to governments. We'll keep promoting and advocating carbon markets. And we want carbon markets to work and to be an effective tool to channel finance where it's needed to reduce emissions and remove emissions from the atmosphere.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Andrea mentioned during the panel that his organization had published a set of policy briefs before COP29, outlining its expectations for discussions at the conference. I asked him if those expectations had been met. He mentioned ITMOs at one point. That stands for internationally transferable mitigation outcomes. And ITMOs are carbon credits that countries can trade to meet their nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement.

Andrea Bonzanni: What we really wanted to see was a market that was investable, a market where the private sector could operate and mobilize investment. We're reasonably happy with the final outcome. It's a negotiation. So not even the most influential countries got everything they wanted. But I think now the market can work because there are clear terms on how authorization of ITMOs under Article 6 can be changed and revoked.

We didn't close the door to revocation completely, but at least whether and how revocation takes place needs to be specified in advance and make publicly available by the host countries. We also have a strong outcome on transparency. There will be a lot of information that countries need to report and the reports will be reviewed and all the outcomes of the reviews will be made publicly available.

So it's a market with information. It's a market with clearer rules. And I think if countries decide to implement Article 6 mechanisms, there would be significant investments that can be mobilized. Carbon markets are relatively new and complex policy instruments.

So we're all on the same boat on a journey to make sure that these instruments can effectively finance climate change mitigation. So we work collaboratively with governments. We're very open about the priorities of our members, the reasons behind certain positions, and we try and foster the interaction between the private sector and governments to make sure that the public policies implemented are effective and can mobilize investments.

Jennifer Laidlaw: There will be a review of Article 6 in 2028. And I ask Andrea to explain what expectations he had for the market between now and then. You'll hear him talk about the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change.

Andrea Bonzanni: Over the last two, three years, there have been significant milestones to support the supply of carbon credits in an international carbon market. We are fixing some of the issues we had with integrity. We have a very clear framework for accounting between countries with Article 6. We have a crediting mechanism run by the UNFCCC that is in operation.

Now it's the time to put all this work into use, and we need a use case for carbon credits. We need governments to incentivize the use of carbon credits. We need private standards and voluntary commitments to, again, incentivize the use of credits, and that should be our focus in the years to come to mobilize the potential that carbon markets can offer. There has been some implementation, but we hope that between now and 2028, it will scale, we will learn a lot, and we will have new themes to discuss by 2028.

Lindsey Hall: So we heard Andrea talk about scaling up the markets in the coming years. How do market participants at the conference approach that subject?

Jennifer Laidlaw: Well, driving demand for carbon trading was one of the key themes during the conference. Just to step back a bit, carbon markets have faced scrutiny in the past over greenwashing or making an investment or product send more sustainable than it actually is.

We heard Andrea talking about efforts to improve the integrity of the carbon markets, and there was a general sense that building confidence would help drive demand. I touched on that very topic with another conference participant, Marieke Franssen, Managing Director, Head of Commodity Carry Solutions at French Investment Bank, Natixis.

We were on a panel together about building the future of carbon markets and how to make carbon bankable or basically how to make carbon projects financially viable. I had a chance to speak to her on the sidelines of the conference, and she explained how she saw the market going forward. Here's Marieke.

Marieke Franssen: For me, if I have one key takeaway from this conference is, yes, there were good reasons for people to question the integrity of the market, but we've made a lot of steps. How do we now go forward? I think the demand question is a key one. Companies need to be incentivized to buy, and they need to be given the confidence that the credits that they're buying can be put to use.

You do need to get that comfort that you can. And so I think for me, the next step in the market is really governments stepping up to give that confidence to the corporate world to create a demand because the market needs supply and demand. It's very simple.

We can't come in unless there's supply and demand and there is a market. Once that's there, once they get a little bit more comfortable, I think banks have more clients to partner with. We'll keep making steps. It will be an educational process. Banks will not sweep in and be very big. But usually, once there is that basis and once there is that switching point, I very much see a future for banks in this market.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Would rules or regulation help in driving confidence in the market? Or would the market be able to self-regulate I asked her?

Marieke Franssen: It's a good question. I think it will be the rules that tell us what the market needs to do. I think in a way, it is just another asset class with its own unique characteristics. So yes, there is some adjustments versus other markets, but we know how to regulate a market.

And we've actually regulated carbon already because we're regulating EU ETS, et cetera. And I think what's interesting is it's some of the regulatory markets are being regulated by regulators that are not market regulators. But what it gives is a framework that banks can rely on, stable governments.

It's your ultimate exit. It's you know that, that demand is there. And so I think that what regulators need to do is set the framework. I mean, yesterday, one of the remarks that was being made was about capital treatment. It's a key point for banks, and it's very unique to banks.

But at the moment, it's unclear what kind of collateral requirements and capital requirements are needed for banks. These are key questions for us. When we go to our standard processes and policies and banks heavily rely on those, you need to be able to answer those questions. So this is where the regulators around us need to give us the guidance under which we can operate.

Jennifer Laidlaw: So we've heard about the opportunities in the carbon markets and how the risks need to be managed for the market to grow. One sector that is looking to play a role here is the insurance sector.

I spoke to Chris Slater, who is CEO and Founder of Oka, the carbon insurance company, about how the insurance sector can contribute to the development of carbon markets. Chris was on a panel with Euan McDougall, who is Group Chief Operating Officer at DelAgua, a company involved in carbon credit projects in Africa.

Both Chris' company and DelAgua have worked together on projects, and you'll hear him mention some of them. You'll also hear him talk about some other acronyms, ICAO, so that's the International Civil Aviation Organization, LOA, so letter of authorization and CORSIA for the carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation. Here's Chris.

Chris Slater: I think the burgeoning of the carbon insurance sector for this market is really quite new. And I think what organizations like Oka are trying to do is really try to figure out where does risk exist, who's really paying for that and managing that risk today because multiple stakeholders in the market are managing that risk in some way. And then if insurance could play a role in reducing or mitigating some of that risk to have some form of financial benefit.

So I think there's a multitude of ways where insurance can play all the way through the generation of a project's life cycle from its funding right at the start through to the delivery of those credits, issuance of those credits and then use of those credits within either compliance or voluntary markets. So I think over time, my view and vision is that there will be a suite of insurance products that can play a role really in help taking some of that risk off the table for a multitude of stakeholders.

Jennifer Laidlaw: And when you say like a suite for insurance products, what kind of products are you looking at?

Chris Slater: Yes. I think what's been exciting about the carbon market is there's been a warm appetite from those stakeholders that exist to really engage and trying and figure out solutions to some of those problems.

So as an example, I was on stage yesterday with DelAgua, one of the developers we've worked with over the last 7 or 8 months to manage the corresponding adjustment risk that really has blossomed or has appeared within ICAO’s assessment of the voluntary market, like how are you as a voluntary market going to ensure that this double counting risk is managed so that airlines can buy confidently can meet their compliance requirements and don't have to be concerned by what happens if the CA is not made by a host country.

So we worked with DelAgua to really understand the work that they've done with the Rwandan government with looking at, okay, where could a double counting risk exist, look at the LOA that had been formed and then built a very specific, very simple product that said, okay, if a corresponding adjustment is not made, there's a payout.

And what ultimately that means is that a CORSIA eligible credit becomes ineligible can replace by one that is eligible. That's great for the airline industry because then it can look at, okay, there's a market mechanism, an insurance solution that takes that risk off the table and brings confidence really to the buyer.

So that's a good example, I think, of finding a very discrete problem and then putting an insurance solution that uses actuarial data and models that have been built over many years to try and solve that problem.

There's a delivery risk product that we're working on at the moment that's really going to help investors, again, buy more confidently so that if credits aren't delivered for one reason or another, you can effectively get recourse. And there's an ability to sort of smooth the impact of that non-delivery for an investor so that they could invest again more confidently. So it's picking off these particular risks and seeing if can we put a product in place to try and help solve them.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Where do you see the most risk in this market? Are there projects that you wouldn't touch? Are there projects you want to get involved in?

Chris Slater: For any insurer to come into the market, really, you need data. You need to be able to look at a historical set of data to price that risk on a forward-looking basis. We've had to do that same work. So we've had to take some of that data that's locked in PDFs and audited information to try and get a sense as to some of the risk that exists. But it's fair to say it's still relatively opaque.

So we're having to draw proxies from other parts of the insurance industry to give us a view as to what the likely claim might come about. So as you think about or as we think about risks, some of the risks that we've been asked to try and deal with the insurance industry isn't very good at.

So if you look at price risk, that's really an investor's job to -- and the rewards they get from making an investment is that the price of the credits, maybe that they take hold off, they'll be able to reap from. So we've been asked to try and deal with some of that risk. The insurance industry doesn't do a good job at that.

When you look at some of the environmental integrity of projects, again, insurance or insurance solutions can go some way, but they're not the silver bullet to saying, okay, I'm not here going out and judging the science assessment of this project. But what it can do is provide a course correction and a mechanism that if, I don't know, a project fails to deliver or the methodology changes evolves and therefore, credits are impaired in some way, insurance can play a role there.

To your question around, well, are there, therefore, projects that we would or wouldn't touch, it really does depend on the risks that we're being asked to cover. If it's a 20-year project and you're being asked to finance that over that period and there's large risks of wildfire, starts to become quite challenging from an insurance and banking standpoint.

So I think those solutions can be built over time, but at the early stage in the evolution of the market, we would probably stay clear potentially of some of those projects with those sort of risks. So really, it comes down to the type of risk that you're looking to cover for. So it's not a blanket. I wouldn't touch X projects, I wouldn't touch X jurisdictions, it's going to be done on a project-by-project basis.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes. We heard Marieke talk about the lack of clarity regarding capital requirements for banks involved in carbon projects. On my panel, we had discussed how insurance companies can work with banks on specific projects to manage risks. And I asked, Chris, what kind of solutions the insurance sector can offer here?

Chris Slater: I think it's a quite exciting area, I think, for the carbon market in that what we're starting to see is structured finance solutions, which I think was on your panel, the sort of conversation that was being had is how can you bring insurance balance sheets alongside investor bank type balance sheets to make structured finance commitments.

And if you look at other project finance, whether it's for renewables, whether it's for manufacturing plants, the two sets of risk bodies really work together to try and for the bank, can we derisk some of that investment.

And I think we're starting to see some of those solutions start to get created, which I think is exciting because I think it can really unlock significant amounts of capital. If you imagine a bank having to hold regulatory capital at quite significant amounts against an asset that isn't as bankable or is in a jurisdiction that's challenging or doesn't have assets apart from the credits.

If you can bring insurance and to derisk some of that, then it can create a capital relief mechanism for the bank as well as take some risk off the table to allow them to invest into more projects. We're really starting to see the early stages of that as we saw in renewables probably 10 or 15 years ago.

So I think that's one of the most exciting areas for the carbon market is that I think these two balance sheets working alongside each other is going to really unlock significant capital to really scale the best projects in the space.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Building integrity and making projects financially viable was a common theme during the conference and the role of carbon rating agencies came up a lot in conversations in helping investors find investable projects that would have long-term impacts.

I spoke to Linda Rivera Macedo, the Sustainable Development Goals and Safeguards Director at Carbon Rating Agency, Calyx Global, and asked her to explain how a carbon rating agency approaches that very subject. Here's Linda.

Linda Rivera Macedo: So we assess a different variety of project types from nature-based projects, avoided deforestation, afforestation projects to technology projects, where we call it, it's industrial projects. At Calyx, we are actively or proactively looking for high-quality projects, which some of these type of projects are considered high-quality projects. We also provide the GHG integrity assessment.

And the work I do, we provide the other side of the coin, where we also share to our customers all the beyond carbon benefits, which would be if they are contributing towards a sustainable development goal, which is, for instance, improving health or to see whether there are some inherent risk of a project type to local communities and the environment.

Jennifer Laidlaw: When you talk about the high level like high-quality projects? What kind of projects are they? Are they specific that you can tell us about these projects?

Linda Rivera Macedo: So high-quality projects for us would be a project that according to the GHG integrity framework, basically, there is less risk of the statement that a ton is a ton, right? It will be like the accounting and the methodology behind it. Basically, the accounting is correct. Our perspective is that it's not only limited to that technical part, but it also goes to beyond carbon benefits.

So for us, high quality means that the project has a high GHG integrity, contributes to our sustainable development and is not harming local communities or environment. So it's three pillars that ensure high-quality projects.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Linda took part in a panel discussion on community engagement in developing carbon projects. So I asked her how local communities can contribute to the long-term success and sustainability of carbon projects.

Linda Rivera Macedo: It has an important and wide impact. So we are about to launch a new product, which we provide a project level environmental and social screening. As I mentioned, these three pillars are important to ensure high quality. So we've been missing this third pillar or this package of information, which assess to what extent a carbon project has impact, negatively impact local communities and environment.

So what we do, we screen of 10 areas that we consider 10 main areas of safeguards which includes human rights, environmental protection, resource efficiency, but we assess stakeholder engagement and transparency and grievance mechanism, which is the foundation of a carbon project. Why? Because stakeholder ensures that your project is not affecting, it's not having a negative impact, but it also ensures sustainability of the project.

You need to inform local communities what you are doing, why you're doing, what are the potential impacts, what are the potential benefits. And it needs to be like an ongoing communication in order to ensure the sustainability of the project. And we've seen some issues with other projects that did not put attention to this element, this beyond carbon element and stakeholder engagement and transparency is vital for the success of a project.

Jennifer Laidlaw: How do local communities, how do they gain like direct financial benefits from carbon projects?

Linda Rivera Macedo: Yes, that's a very interesting question because we are -- and I think it comes from a nature-based projects, right? So this message makes total sense for projects where there are carbon rights involved, right? Because there are some local communities, indigenous people, there are holders like carbon right holders.

So in that perspective or in that field, it makes total sense to talk about benefit sharing as in financial sharing. There are other project types that it cannot -- you cannot replicate that mechanism exactly as we do. But for another project like industrial project or ozone depleting substances, it's a private project.

So talking about benefit sharing as financial sharing may not be like the most appropriate term, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be benefit sharing in that for that specific project types. benefit could be in form of having transparent information, having access to -- sometimes there are companies that have like open house.

So they would go into the destruction plan and they would know what happened and they would ask questions. So that is like benefit sharing is just like this relationship that allows and links or creates like a relation with communities or for an ASM project would be access to a forest. That doesn't mean that they need to pay or they need to financially share, but they will have -- they will like open benefits or use to local communities.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Interestingly, you mentioned nature-based projects because obviously, this is something we've looked at quite a lot in research that we've done. And there's very few companies actually getting involved in nature-based projects. What kind of ways can we encourage companies to get involved in more kind of nature-based projects?

Linda Rivera Macedo: Yes. Well, unfortunately, there's been some, we can call it bad press for nature-based projects. And I think it was reasonable, and it led to improve methodologies. It was kind of like catalytic and helped to improve how the integrity and how the GHG accounting was made.

But to be honest, and that's my personal opinion, nature-based projects are one of the most comprehensive and robust type of projects because while they can contribute towards reduction, at the same time, they promote sustainable development. And they do. It's just like it's aligning to nice objectives and the positive change and they are hand-to-hand, right?

So I think for me, that's one of the most comprehensive, it should be invested more on the nature-based projects. What we need, we need more confidence, right? And we need better methodologies. And we're on track. There are some changes, but we need to see and we need to wait a little bit to see more of this.

But I'm confident that if we show the real benefits of these project types, along with the positive changes coming from the new methodologies, maybe there will be better momentum for nature-based projects.

Jennifer Laidlaw: So we've mentioned a few different mechanisms, regulations and frameworks and their impacts on carbon markets so far. Another regulation that came up on a panel and in quite a lot of conversations was the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, widely known as CBAM, which puts a tariff on imports of carbon-intensive goods.

In 2023, the EU started phasing in its own CBAM, which will become fully applicable from 2026. CBAM puts a tariff on imports from countries where carbon prices are lower than those in the EU or nonexistent. In other words, where goods can be produced without accounting for the hidden cost of contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.

To get more of a sense of how CBAM was affecting industries, I spoke to Robin Pedroza, Head of Sustainability Transformation at thyseenkrupp Materials Services, part of German industrial and steel giant thyseenkrupp. I started by asking him what impact CBAM was having on the steel industry.

Robin Pedroza: Well, it's already having an impact. So first of all, it's requiring a lot more transparency. And for some of our suppliers from outside of Europe, it seems like a bureaucratic monster. But on the other hand, we're seeing progress in getting the data, getting the transparency, and that's going to definitely influence the supply chain.

And at least, we're going to see a lot of procurement departments really evaluate their supply chains in the terms of CBAM, yes, especially maybe even leading to a fragmentation -- more of a fragmentation of the steel market. I think in the short term, it's going to lead to some difficulties navigating it. But I think the goal and purpose of CBAM is important. And as we move together, I think we're going to find solutions for it. So I hope we make the best out of it.

Jennifer Laidlaw: So what changes is the company making to its supply chain management because of CBAM? I ask Robin.

Robin Pedroza: We are definitely being more proactive managing where the material is coming from and basically guiding our suppliers through those challenges. And that help us identify also what are kind of the strategic suppliers that we want to keep on developing, yes.

So we're definitely looking into our supply chains, not only now from, let's say, a price perspective, but also a carbon perspective as well. We have some smaller suppliers or suppliers that have less of an exposure to Europe. They may say, you know what, we don't really benefit that much from exporting to Europe.

So then they focus on their local markets. We see some of the suppliers that depend on Europe really having to put all their energies into complying with it. And so we see, let's say, a two-pronged strategy depending on what exposure you have to the European market. We are engaging more actively our suppliers.

We are trying to help them figure out what the requirements are and to comply to the best of their ability. And at the same time, we're informing our customers of what influence that may have on their supply chains. And I think that it's really important to show them what the value added of having us as an importer is for their supply chains as well.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Some of the discussions at the conference focused on whether countries are creating their own carbon pricing scheme in response to CBAM. This was mentioned during the panel Robin participated on. So I asked him what he thought.

Robin Pedroza: It's actually ingrained, and I think it was intended by CBAM to incentivize other governments to create their own carbon markets. So if you want to have the tax collection done in Europe, local country, you can have a carbon market. So I think it's not an either/or it's complementary. And that's what hopefully, we'll see.

And I think that's my appeal. We won't solve the climate crisis in Europe. I think they were talking about 3% that got covered by the ETS of low emissions. The bigger levers are in Asia. And I hope that CBAM is creating that transparency and helping set up things in motion to really drive change there.

I think we're going to start seeing some changes once CBAM takes monetary value. So the earliest 2026, '27. But if you look into the development, there's a steep development in 2028, '29 and '30. So I expect those to be the key years to set things in motion.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Robin's panel also discussed whether some countries might simply decide to avoid the EU market because of CBAM. What was his take, I wondered?

Robin Pedroza: That's a possibility. We see some highly dependent producers that export to the European market. They have to comply and they have to act as if they were part of a single markets. We see some other producers, especially in East Asia that may focus more on their local markets and reduce their exposure to Europe.

Jennifer Laidlaw: There was a general sense of optimism during the conference, helped by the finalization of the rules around Article 6. And while carbon markets remain in a nascent state, there's room for growth. Here's Marieke again with her closing thoughts on the conference.

Marieke Franssen: Before I came to this conference, I probably would have answered a few questions differently than what I'm doing here today. So you are learning. We are still market that is learning. Going through this space is very normal. We've seen the same in the compliance markets. But I think that if I go away with anything, I am cautiously positive that's been said. I feel that as well. And I do think that we're heading in the right direction.

Lindsey Hall: So that's certainly a positive note to end our coverage of the conference on today. I think giving confidence to the market is crucial to encouraging investment, and it's something that came up in my conversation with the Executive Director at the nonprofit Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative on Article 6.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Yes. So Marieke mentioned being cautiously positive about the future. This is something I heard from many conference attendees about the future of carbon markets.

Esther Whieldon: And as we heard from Marieke and Chris, the role of financial institutions will be key here with banks providing the financing for bankable projects and insurance companies mitigating risk. Well, thanks, Jennifer, for coming in and telling us more about the conference.

Jennifer Laidlaw: Well, thanks for having me. It was great to be here.

Lindsey Hall: Thanks so much for listening to this episode of ESG Insider. If you like what you heard today, please subscribe, share and leave us or review wherever you get your podcasts.

Esther Whieldon: And a special thanks to our agency partner, The 199. See you next time.

Copyright ©2025 by S&P Global 

This piece was published by S&P Global Sustainable1, a part of S&P Global.    

DISCLAIMER 

By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk. This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties. 

S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST.