KEITH MULLIN, KM CAPITAL MARKETS: CHRISTA, I’D LIKE TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT DATA QUALITY. THE EU TAXONOMY AND GREEN BOND STANDARD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED THROUGHOUT THE DISCUSSION, WE ALSO HAVE THE SUSTAINABLE FINANCE DISCLOSURE REGULATION AND THE PROPOSED CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING DIRECTIVE TO REPLACE THE NON-FINANCIAL REPORTING DIRECTIVE. THERE IS A MOVE TO MAKE SURE THAT COMPANIES DISCLOSE, AND DISCLOSE IN A MATERIAL FASHION. HOW WOULD YOU SUMMARISE THE QUALITY OF DISCLOSURE TODAY? DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH? IF YOU DON’T, WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT IT? Christa Clapp, Cicero Shades of Green: If I had to put just one word on it, I would say “patchy” at best as an overall comment about where the market is. Of course, we work with some issuers that are very well prepared and have done their homework. That makes our job easier, and their job easier too. But we have found, particularly with the Taxonomy as we look at some preliminary alignment pieces, that there seems to be a little bit of a misperception in the market that Taxonomy alignment is simply a matter of data on the environment thresholds for the activities. But the Taxonomy has three requirements for alignment: meeting the environmental threshold; not doing significant harm on the other environmental and sustainability criteria; and meeting the minimum social safeguards. Those are three checks that we need to go through with an issuer. And often they’ve prepared, maybe, the first step, and not the others. And it does require a different level of data, especially for not doing significant harm, and a level of interpretation on our side, as well, to make sure that we’re striking a balance between what is necessary to know in terms of avoiding negative environmental impacts, but, at the same time, making it reasonable for issuers to come to market. That’s a challenge of usability as we start implementing the Taxonomy that we all have to work through. As I said earlier, I think the answer is not more data, it’s the right kind of data. We need to understand the data. We need to understand, for example, that a new building is not being built with materials that have a lot of life-cycle emissions. That would be an obvious example. I think we will have an adjustment period, and I don’t think there’s a way that issuers immediately can be prepared for that, and we’re trying to incorporate that analysis in all our products, and I know investors are also preparing. There’s just a big challenging period right now where we’re all after more information, but we’re after the relevant type of information. KEITH MULLIN, KM CAPITAL MARKETS: THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE THAT I WANTED TO THROW OUT: WITHOUT CARBON REDUCTION, NOTIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY ARE FUTILE SHORT-TERMISM. HOW DOES THE PANEL RESPOND TO THIS? Christa Clapp, Cicero Shades of Green: Certainly, we agree, and that’s embedded in the method that we use, Shades of Green, where a dark green rating from us on a bond indicates that the use of proceeds is targeting activities that are generally in line with the Paris Agreement, that is to say across all sectors around net-zero emissions by mid-century. There’s some interpretation around what net-zero means, but that’s the general direction, and we think it’s very important, especially for infrastructure investments that are made today, that we get that alignment right. That’s the bedrock of our approach. When we review sustainability bonds or sustainability-linked bonds, we don’t deviate from that green aspect. We think that climate risk is the most material risk that we know from the science of sustainability aspects, so that’s our number one concern as well. Frank Richter, NRW.Bank: I would agree, as well. Keeping global warming in line with the Paris Accord – for us that means close to 1.5 degrees – is the most relevant target we have