Directors' Dialogues: Stewardship in the Boardroom
Directors’ Dialogues is hosted by the Climate Governance Initiative. Each episode takes a deep dive into the stewardship journey of board directors from across all sectors, types of companies and parts of the world. Whether you are new to the climate governance space or an accomplished steward, this podcast will bring you true voices sharing their experiences, challenges, and successes in navigating climate action and integrating it into the boardroom conversation. For more information on what we do, visit climate-governance.org.
Directors' Dialogues: Stewardship in the Boardroom
05: Collaboration, Context and Financial Materiality: A Board Director’s Approach to Sustainable Growth with Tina Mavraki
In this episode, hosts Alexandra Bolton and Matthew Moss are joined by board director Tina Mavraki. Tina is an IoD Chartered Portfolio Director and sustainability advocate with a diverse NED portfolio, including Metlen Energy & Metals and First Bauxite LLC. Her 26-year executive career spans capital markets, investment management, and global supply chains at firms like Morgan Stanley and Citi. Tina has advised on climate policy, offering governance recommendations to the FCA and EBA on climate transition and executive remuneration.
This episode explores Tina’s transition from executive to non-executive roles and how she learned from governance failures early in her career. The conversation addresses the challenges and opportunities in implementing sustainability within high-emission sectors, emphasising the financial materiality of climate change and the necessity for collaboration and engagement amongst stakeholders to drive meaningful action in the boardroom.
For more information on what we do, visit climate-governance.org.
Hello and welcome to Directors Dialogues from the Climate Governance Initiative, where we lift the lid on the different ways that company board members are speaking up for climate in their boardrooms. In each episode we meet a climate champion who's been leading or nudging or badgering their boardroom colleagues towards climate-friendly policies and practices. I'm Alexandra Bolton.
Speaker 2:And I'm Matthew Moss is Tina Mavracki, a fabulously experienced board director and strategic advisor with also an executive career behind her spanning more than two decades. In her executive career she's worked with global capital markets investment management. She's worked up and down the supply chain in C suite positions. Her executive career has largely been with Morgan Stanley and with Citi. She's advised organisations that have included the state of Maharashtra in India on renewable policy and solar tariffs, and listeners who have heard our interview with Shailesh Haribakti will remember how important energy policy is in that part of the world. Tina's NED portfolio includes energy and metals. Her advisory portfolio covers banking debt funds, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Children's Investment Fund Foundation In climate policy advisory. Importantly and we'll come to this later Tina produced governance recommendations for climate transition and for executive remuneration for the UK's Financial Conduct Authority and for the European Banking Authority, so couldn't be a better person for us to be talking to, tina, welcome.
Speaker 3:What a delight to be with you. Thank you so much, and thank you so much for the amazing work that CGI has been doing around the world. So I can't wait to get started with you and get into the weeds of how things get done, how things don't get done and what we could do to progress their conversations on their boards and their advisory capacities.
Speaker 2:Brilliant, thank you. So we want our listeners to understand a little bit more about you before we get into the bigger questions. So, thinking back to your first job, tell us something that sticks in your mind as to how that job might have influenced you as you develop your career.
Speaker 3:Absolutely. As I think back into my career, obviously no career is successful unless there's tenacity and perseverance and hard work. That is obvious. But the beginning of my career was marked by a series of governance failures. So back then in 1998, we had Russia default on its debts and the long term capital management fund blowing up. Since then I've experienced another three big governance failures in my career and that kind of sparked a natural curiosity about what is it about all these things? What is the common thread, what am I learning, what should I be learning, what am I not learning and what do I do going forward? So you brought me back to 98. I was counting only three big governance failures in my career, but actually you're right, it's four in total. So there you go.
Speaker 2:Wow, I wasn't quite expecting you to begin to draw our attention to the governance failures that were stark in your first job. That's quite an introduction. When did you first become interested in sustainability? I decided to go back and retrain.
Speaker 3:So I got my master's in finance at London Business School. I met my first business partner there, the Indian government, to understand lessons learned from the European experience on what was a first big wave of renewable investments, feeding tariffs and the whole excitement around what was a start in a big trend. So that's what started my career in sustainability, which was then solidified with my times with Noble Group. That was the only big listed global supply chain manager and because we were getting debt funding from banks for all the investments we were making. Environmental impact assessment was one of the big things that we had to take care of. Rehabilitation was one of the big things we had to take care of in our investments and therefore we already got into climate management of sorts as soon as 2012 2013.
Speaker 1:shorts as soon as 2012, 2013. That's really interesting actually, tina, and the way that finance and sustainability are linked and have become more linked. It's becoming more and more obvious as we go forward. But I'm interested in you started off in executive roles, with some really top-notch firms moving over to be a board member, and certainly we at CGI see those as quite different roles. I'd be really interested to hear how you found that move, whether you feel there's more freedom in one space or another to actually ask those difficult questions.
Speaker 3:Freedom in one space or another to actually ask those difficult questions. I'll tell you what. I started quite early my board career in my very early 40s. It was actually the best thing that I did, the reason being that I was in a much better position to convey to senior management core investment messages, knowing the perspective that we're coming from. And, likewise, as a board director, I had much more insight to understand the internal dynamics, the pressures that executive management was under, and therefore managed to bridge what are two completely separate worlds. So I would absolutely recommend for people to start their non-exec career earlier, because it makes them better directors but definitely better executives as well, and that tandem can follow them throughout the whole career span, whether it's executive or non-executive.
Speaker 1:That's super helpful. Are there any tips you'd like to give to aspiring board directors who are currently in executive positions as to how they should go about doing that?
Speaker 3:People have asked me, especially when I'm interviewing you know, how did you get your first board career board role? It was by luck. It's incredibly difficult to get your first board position, but when the opportunity arises all of a sudden becomes incredibly easy. Why? Because you're the right person in the right moment with the right company. When you're trying to feed through a keyhole, it's just not going to happen. But when you are curious, when you're pushing the agenda, when you're doing leadership in the form of getting things done or thought leadership in the form of policy advisory or in the form of pushing out new ways of thinking, that's when, all of a sudden, you find yourself in opportunities where people seek out your insights into boards. So it's incredibly difficult if you say I want to be a board director, but incredibly easy when, intuitively, you start building out all these competencies and skills and impact that make you a good board director. I hope I'm answering your question.
Speaker 1:Oh no, you are absolutely. It sounds as if what's the old phrase build it and they will come. If you make yourself the person who is expert, who has knowledge, who's curious, of course you you'll find a board position in that space.
Speaker 3:That makes it makes a lot of sense precisely and and going back to you your question, matthew, about I didn't expect these, um, this big answer to to your start moments in your first job, what I'll tell you is that to me, a directorship is all about motivation. Why do people get seek to get a board position? Mine was a place of deficit, if you will, which I wanted to turn into a surplus. So if I've seen all these executive situations, what would I do differently if I could, and how do I make sure that under my watch these things don't happen? So a motivation of a board director is a critical thing because, as I'm sure we'll get down to questions about climate transition, your motivation comes in with you in the boards and the way you ask questions, the way you probe, the way you support the executive management, the way you propose different things, brings your motivation alive.
Speaker 1:That's super interesting.
Speaker 1:I mean, we often hear that your purpose, your motivation, is what drives your career and of course it will apply to board directors, but it's really great to hear that it does and that it's part of everything that you do in those roles.
Speaker 1:Delve a little bit deeper into energy and minerals and you know, as you know, they're both really hard to abate sectors, but yet they're the very sectors that we we know we have to see significant cuts happening in in emissions and improvements in in stewardship if we're going to make the difference, the change that we have to make. And we also know that business as usual isn't going to be an option if we're going to reach our climate targets. But it's not all sort of negative. There are these huge opportunities that firms can grasp by creating products and services for this new economy. And I'm really interested you sit on a number of boards in those sectors, boardroom perspectives. How do you see companies in mining and energy creating those cultural changes and the structures so that they can enact policies that will see this transition to the future that we all want, the one where people on the planet flourish together?
Speaker 3:That's a very good question and let me start from the end, if you will. So the main board that I sit on is an energy and metals producer, so a utility and a fully integrated utility and a metals producer an aluminium, primarily metals producer. I joined the board six and a half years ago. The stock price was around between 6 to 9 euros. Today it stands at about 34 euros. A big chunk of that premium is a green premium. So, just starting from the end, climate change or climate management and profitability are absolutely compatible. Why? Because I've seen it in practice. Let me give you another case in point from my advisory portfolio.
Speaker 3:A truly hard to abate sector is the shipping sector. Is the shipping sector. What we're currently doing is going through with and this is a company, a ship leasing company that I'm advising. What we're currently doing is going through with bankers, with insurance companies, to understand what would be the cost benefit analysis of green retrofits, how much money it would make you in terms of lower operating expenses and in terms of longer commercial value of your vessels as a result of significant retrofits. And the other thing is what insurance discount you can get by going back to your insurers and saying these vessels are more climate-proof as a result of X Y Z investments in my retrofits.
Speaker 3:So what we've done in both cases is we've understood the financial materiality of climate change. So we started from that. So if I'm here to help you visualize a pyramid, the results are there. The financial materiality was the second line into the pyramid and the conditions that create this financial materiality are regulation and investor demands and insurance cover. So when you have these in your pyramids and then when you follow the cash flow, as I say, rather than just state the principles and stay at the level of principles, then you can actually trace the financial materiality of climate management and then it becomes such a powerful argument in any board setting, in any advisory setting, in any setting really, that it becomes hard to ignore, not hard to abate, not hard to abate. So, um, that that is my understanding, six years in to this effort, and it works. It's worked for me so far. It's worked in difficult sectors and it's working in helping to transform what we call hard to abate sectors as well.
Speaker 1:That's really interesting and I love that. I love that phrase hard to ignore rather than hard to abate. I'm seeing similar things coming into the built environment, which is another sector that we know we need to work on. Are you finding the drivers are coming in? Or actually, maybe let's rephrase that when are you finding the main driver coming from? Is it investors, is it insurance and financial services demanding these better ways of working, better outcomes, or is it from board directors themselves? Or is it a combination of all those factors you mentioned?
Speaker 3:It has to be a combination of all these factors. Any director, at any point in time, needs to have the full context in their mind, present the full context to their organizations. They owe it as a fiduciary. So it's down to the individual director to be very well informed and by informed I don't mean reading, I mean accrediting To seek out to understand the perspectives of the other people that they're sitting in the stakeholder room, if you that they're sitting in the stakeholder room, if you will, principally in the investors, principally, especially when we're talking about liabilities, any form of significant liabilities that could come into play, and therefore seek to understand what are the largest pressures that need to come into the boardroom conversation, be discussed openly and propose specific ideas or areas of ideas for the executive management to consider and incorporate into their strategy.
Speaker 3:I think we expect a lot of executives these days, the reason being that we still think in terms of what were the good times in the world, where times were tame, there were not major wars, inflation was extremely tame. These were unprecedentedly benevolent times. Now everything is up in the air. So what is it about? Directors that, to me, are supporting what are high-performance executive teams do their job better. This is a completely symbiotic not symbiotic supportive job. So, to answer your question in a very roundabout way, you have to come in with ideas. You have to come in with ideas, you have to come in with perspectives, you have to come in with sharp understanding of what ifs, what are the critical things that matter to the organization, how does climate affect them, how does climate enable them and start building what is an opportunity set and a risk management set that will see the company through to the next three to five years?
Speaker 1:And I like that view of the interaction between the board and the executives. We certainly don't hear that spoken about much, but it's absolutely key to make sure that that support I love the phrase supportive that supportive relationship works, because if it doesn't, neither group can do their job well.
Speaker 3:Absolutely, absolutely. It's all about supporting and it's a dynamic relationship. When we're talking about climate change, you're asking people to do things in a very different way to what they used to. So do not assume that because you heard it in the financial times or you heard it in the presidential elections in the US, where all of a sudden, both candidates acknowledged that climate change is a reality, especially after what happened in Florida, that you know. People then get it. Well, help them. How do they get it? What do they do as a result?
Speaker 3:Say, you are a bank and obviously the very large banks come under immense supervision. But what if you took the top 30 clients of yours and do a proper climate transition stress test? What insights could that produce for you? What products could that produce for you? What services, what changes in your risk management system? What new processes in your AI assistance of your compliance could it produce? You keep both perspectives in mind without interfering in any executive job, but when you're offering solutions, when you're offering strategic directions of solutions, the relationship is bound to be a supportive relationship.
Speaker 2:Tina, you've been fantastic at seeding references to the finance sector in all of the answers that you've given so far. I know that you're colossally experienced in that sector too. I want to dive a little bit more into the finance sector, not least because the climate transition is urgent, right, and we know that within the finance sector there are organizations that are capable of directing the necessary hundreds of millions of dollars in the right direction, or indeed the wrong direction, thinking that they can create levers that will move the finance sector itself and the real economy in the right direction in the climate transition.
Speaker 3:So I will answer your question in two ways. I would divide that question into the external factors that help or hinder banks from promoting climate transition and internal reasons. So, going to the external kind of conditions with which a bank can help climate transition unless the companies that it services are not willing to progress very far and unless there is a national transition plan behind it that provides the context, the visibility, the targets and an organized fashion with which you can get your natural resources. You can get different divisions to work with each other or different departments to work with each other. I'm afraid it is fair for banks to say you know what? We can only hold this pen for that long. We cannot transition by ourselves. I think it's an absolutely fair statement, especially because banks are banks. The primary role of banks is to service and make money. If you want banks to go bankrupt, we have a completely different problem altogether. Now, these are the external reasons that banks might or might not be progressing with climate transition as much. There is another side to this equation, and that is internal reasons why banks may or may not be progressing climate transition as fast as we would like them to.
Speaker 3:We wrote a paper together with the Centre for Climate Engagement, on the financial materiality of corporate culture. And the main tenant behind that paper, which is a practical guide on corporate culture, is that corporate culture is one of the main reasons why banks are resistant to change. So, again, like any other company, like any other industry, you're asking banks to change their ways, the way that they connect risk with reward, the way that they connect top to bottom. So the top hierarchy with the middle management, what they call permafrost these days, or the bottom part of the hierarchy that actually executes the strategy, of the hierarchy that actually executes the strategy. And therefore, unless you have that connectivity, unless you have systems and processes in place that make sure that leadership is effective and is cascaded throughout the organization, or risk management changes are cascaded throughout the organization, then, whether this is climate change, whether this is war resilience, whether this is inflation resilience, you're not going to get it Because, as you rightly said, you cannot have the same ways with which you think you will be successful in tackling completely different problems in tackling completely different problems.
Speaker 3:So I would love to prompt you to have a read at that paper, which is the Financial Materiality of Corporate Culture. It's naturally addressed at banks because, again, banks are so heavily regulated that they become quite a fertile ground for analysis. But the principles apply across the boards, across industries and across geographies as well. So, external reasons some things you can, some things you cannot influence. Internal reasons you can 100% influence and there, there, I think, lies the primary area of focus that investors should spend time on. What are the internal reasons? Whether it's leadership, whether that's internal dynamics, whether that's your governance, whether that's your behaviour, whether that's your corporate purpose, how do these all come together to deliver the service that you've promised to serve your clients with?
Speaker 2:Fabulous Thank you. Systems and culture is the whole of the deal. That's it. And, by the way, we're always happy to plug the Centre for Climate Engagement, our sister organisation.
Speaker 1:Tina, you mentioned remuneration in financial companies and that's something that came up in Climate Week, new York that we need to change the way we recognise the achievements of, specifically, executives in the conversation I was having, but also directors and other levels of management within the financial sector, from short-term increases in capital values to longer-term increases in not just financial value but value in a holistic sense. Do you have any examples of where you've seen that work really well?
Speaker 3:I do not understand that question and the reason why I'm saying this to you is that there is no financial value that doesn't capture holistic value. Whether, sooner or later, these things end up being the same. Why do I say that? Because some client is going to get angry with you because you mistreated them. Some process is going to fail. You're going to get angry with you because you mistreated them. Some process is going to fail. You're going to get your fines. Some investor is going to get uncomfortable. You're going to lose your investor base. So it is a question of time and timing, but unavoidably, these things end up being the same. These things end up being the same.
Speaker 3:So, when you look at the Dow Jones index, how many companies go in and out of that index? How many companies that were there 50 years ago are still there now? I alive, not just in a different index alive. So it's a question of the duration of, of your attention, the duration of your investment. As a, I have a nine year at best. I have a nine year horizon, and then in my ninth year, I have another five years horizon because I will approve the next three to five year plan. So, as a CEO, I have an average of five, seven years, but the systems and processes that I put in place survive well after I'm gone. So there's much more longevity in an organisation than the numbers suggest.
Speaker 1:And do you think that longevity is correctly accounted for those decisions over that long period of time? Are they correctly accounted for in the way those executives and directors are remunerated currently?
Speaker 3:It depends on your shareholder base are remunerated. Currently, it depends on your shareholder base. If your shareholder base is primarily composed of passive index funds, neither here nor there. But if you have your active investors, if you have your whom you should actually aspire to have on your shareholder register, it's not a have your on your shareholder register, it's not a question of your share having a shareholder register, it's a question of actively managing your shareholder register is something that I I insist in in in my uh board interventions what the aspiring shareholders the rather, who are the shareholders you aspire to have in your shareholder register? That will see you through in the major transformations you're trying to make in the organization.
Speaker 1:Again, it's about that support, isn't it at those different levels, making sure that it's throughout the organization.
Speaker 3:So when you and I'm a remuneration director when you devise your remuneration policy, you cannot expect the long-term to run on its own. The short-term should be increments that support your long-term performance. They create what Masik said last Thursday in a conference that I was muscle, organizational muscle, and it's logical that, in terms of sequence, that you build up the short-term that delivers the long-term, that you build up the short term that delivers the long term. If you have a remuneration policy that is congruent between the short term and the long term, it represents a short-term summary of the company's strategy. So therefore, there's an absolute consistency between your strategy and your remuneration policy. And then, when you have your targets that are cascaded throughout the organization, the likelihood is that you have something that works.
Speaker 3:The one thing that I would advise when it comes to remuneration policy is be wary of your benchmarks. It's easy to compare with your immediate neighbor, but when you are going for change, you don't go with the lowest denominator. You go with people that have actually succeeded, and therefore we're talking about composites, benchmark composites of companies that have really succeeded, whether they are or they're not in your sector. What elements can you pick and choose from different organizations that will see you through in the next five, ten years, and 2050, I mean, it's far for everyone. So let's just focus on the short term to medium term to make sure that we put the in place so that then we can talk about 2035, 2040, etc. Etc. Long winded answer to what was a very, very simple question.
Speaker 1:No, it's a great answer and I love, I love having that ambition beyond the easy and the close, to looking you to looking far more broadly at different sectors and really creating a challenge for yourself. I'm going to, if I may, take a slightly different route and ask a different question. So, looking at your career, over the fast past um several decades, you've worked with policymakers and business leaders, um as well as um within organizations and boards and certainly from from what we see um, all of those groups can have quite varied perspectives and different routes to change and to making change happen. Where have you found the best value for engaging, whether it's internally or externally, to gain support for climate initiatives and climate policy?
Speaker 3:initiatives and climate policy. So I cannot see a way realistically of making change unless I have all the perspectives in the same room. So I actively seek out the perspectives of the regulators, I actively seek out the perspectives of investors, I actively seek out the perspectives and experience of executives and non-executives and I sit down, I put all of this together and I try to understand what best theory says not best practice what best theory says what is happening on the ground and how do you bridge what are fundamental gaps. So really, the value is in putting all of the perspectives together and trying to see how each part can pull its weight in order to make one inch of progress, two inches of progress, and create that necessary momentum for the next challenge and the next challenge and opportunity after that.
Speaker 1:And that sort of goes back to what you were saying before around systems and things being linked.
Speaker 3:I mean, this was the primary motivation for me to get involved into policy advisory. So I've produced six papers so far, six white papers or practical guidance, whatever you want to call it. Four of them have been published. Two of them are with European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the aim there is really to understand not what, why, what's happening.
Speaker 3:That is blocking things and instead of asking rhetorical questions and we people that are very keen on climate change we end up getting quite frustrated and we end up asking these rhetorical questions Well, why don't you get it? Why don't you get it? I mean, clearly someone is not getting something on the other side of the table, so the onus of proof is on them or on you. So you have to turn that rhetorical question into a genuine question. Sit down, understand and sit down and understand lots of different perspectives and then, when you get into one level underneath and one level underneath that, then you can understand the root causes, the blockages and what kind of interventions can help unblock things.
Speaker 3:In part, you know people love instant gratification these days. It's not available in climate change. Forget it. Okay, it's all about the question of inches, and one inch closer at a time. I know that things are changing radically out there, but in the same time, war conditions are changing radically, whether they're hot wars or cold wars. Inflation is changing radically, whether it is persistent reflation or transient inflation. Societal disruptions are changing rapidly as well, to the extent that now they're becoming a formal engagement subject by investors. So we had it relatively easy back in 2020. Now we don't. So unless we make it a genuine discovery process and try to understand all perspectives and bring them together, our arguments are going to get sidelined, and that would be the biggest failure of us as climate practitioners.
Speaker 1:How can boards help convene that conversation, or where do you think those conversations are best convened?
Speaker 3:Bilaterally to begin with, not in a plenary board situation. You have to start bilaterally. You need to build situation. You have to start bilaterally, you need to build. I mean, boards are not, they're foray of influence, they're not similar to a Supreme Court environment. So you need to start bilaterally. You need to understand other people's perspective.
Speaker 3:Where are they coming from? Where are they going with this same with the executive and by executive I don't mean the c-suite, I mean n minus one, n minus two, n minus three, internal audit, the head of climate risk in your organization, etc. Etc. And then, once you start bilaterally and create some common ground, then you get the third person in, then a fourth person in, then it's a board committee, then it's two board committees and then it becomes a plenary board conversation. But to walk in and say, hey, haven't you seen? No, I haven't seen, because I've seen another 10 other things that are top of the risk register, that have to be operationalized. And then you've lost the momentum, you've lost your argument and you've lost your chance to make an impact. So you have to be very methodical and you have to be very well studied and you have to punch very succinctly.
Speaker 2:Great. Thank you, tina. As you know, our theory of change at the Climate Governance Initiative is that it's the non-executive director in many jurisdictions that has that special responsibility to ask difficult questions in the boardroom, and we encourage and motivate them to do that and we help them to understand the answers that they get too. I know that you have a lot of experience working with one of our chapters, chapter Zero in the UK. You're a fellow of Chapter Zero and I wondered if I could encourage you just for a couple of minutes to talk about the benefits to board directors of engaging with the chapter network and with fellow board directors who have come to the same party.
Speaker 3:Absolutely. There is no better therapy session than a session with Chapter Zero, because you have the theory and then you have the reality of practice and, in that reality of practice, understanding how other people are dealing with it, how they are managing it. How do they input climate metrics into the remuneration process? How do they make sure that climate is operationalized in the risk register and cascaded down the organization? The best way to find out ideas and methodologies to get your executives to understand is through conversations with un-meds.
Speaker 3:People that have succeeded and people have failed have equally important insights to provide for you Now. I've run about 400 interviews so far for my policy work. So one of again the motivations behind all this policy work is that I get to be a better director. Why? Because I hear how people succeed and how people fail and hopefully I try to fail in different ways and succeed in the same ways, plus different ways as well, which I will go back and share in 4i, like chapter zero, and help people understand. You know how do we deal with this now? Because we are in the pecking order. We're getting lower and lower and lower, unfortunately.
Speaker 2:Yeah, thank you, tina. This has been such a good conversation. Thanks so much for spending this time with us. We try to ask all of our interviewees a couple of final questions, so let me ask you this what advice would you give to an ed, an independent director, who is trying to speak up for climate in the boardroom, perhaps for the first time, trying to get the board's attention onto that topic?
Speaker 3:Three things Financial materiality. Understand climate context in your organisation and build alliances in the boardroom. Don't throw a question because you throw an empty question. You'll get an empty answer back. Because you throw an empty question, you'll get an empty answer back. You throw a question that is served in a can. You'll get a can't answer back. Do your homework, do your financial materiality or poke financial materiality and you will start getting the conversation going.
Speaker 1:And my question is more at the organisational level. So if you had to give one key message to boards and organisations in light of the climate crisis, what would that be?
Speaker 3:Financial materiality insurance. Will you have insurance availability or pricing to do what you're doing today?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm hearing insurance more and more coming up. That's really interesting. Wonderful, Tina Mavracki. Thank you so very much for sharing your thoughts and insights with us today.
Speaker 3:This has been fantastic for me as well, and I really want to congratulate you for the amazing work that you're doing out there and also for convening directors and giving a lot of information and tools out there for people to be able to do their job well. So my thanks to you.
Speaker 2:Thank you. This interview was recorded in October 2024. The Climate Governance Initiative is a global non-profit network reaching more than 100,000 board directors. Most of the world's greenhouse gas emissions come from the private sector, so the central question the initiative asks is what if every company had a climate target and a plan to meet it? We work globally, with over 30 chapters reaching board directors in over 70 countries, and our work draws on the principles for effective climate governance set out by the World Economic Forum. If you want to know more, there's a link in the show notes where all our content is available for free and where you can find your local chapter. In our next episode, we'll be talking to Miha Kusak. Miha has over 30 years of experience in international banking, ranging from corporate banking, investment banking, corporate finance. He's worked with capital markets and wealth management, and he is the chair and co-founder of Chapter Zero Slovenia. I'm really looking forward to getting his perspective from the financial sector in our next episode.