Making Climate Law Work
Exploring how legal tools shape climate action in practice, from the Energy and Climate Change Law Institute and qLegal at Queen Mary University of London.
Making Climate Law Work
Climate change and corporations: the new way of doing business
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
"Shareholders and consumers can influence corporations to move in clean energy and sustainable directions, and that is the key driver for the transition."
Climate law is no longer just a regulatory concern; it's a boardroom reality. Hosts Nikola Duper and Alisa Ainonen are joined by Iyesogie Igiehon ESG Managing Associate at Linklaters London, and Jessica Hargreaves, Senior Associate in Energy & Infrastructure at Linklaters, to examine how the energy transition is reshaping corporate strategy and governance. From greenwashing risks to the demands of the CSRD and CSDDD, the episode asks a pointed question: are law and markets genuinely driving corporate climate action, or is compliance still outpacing commitment?
Please note: This episode was recorded before recent escalations in the Middle East. Some context may have shifted since recording.
Link to our guests' social media accounts:
LinkedIn: Jessica Hargreaves, linkedin.com/in/jessica-hargreaves-2478b935
LinkedIn: Iyesogie Igiehon, linkedin.com/in/iyesogie-igiehon
Welcome to Making Climate Law Work, a podcast exploring how legal tools shape climate action in practice from the Energy and Climate Change Law Institute and Q Legal at Queen Mary University of London. Today we are looking at how climate change is transforming the way corporations operate and make decisions.
SPEAKER_02In particular, we'll explore the growing regulatory pressure on companies and how they are adapting to this new legal and financial landscape. From disclosure and due diligence to green finance, we'll ask whether these tools are actually driving the energy transition forward.
SPEAKER_00We are very pleased to be joined today by E.S. Ageon, ESG Managing Associated Link Laters in London, and Jessica Hargraves, Senior Associated Link Laters, both specializing in energy and infrastructure, ESG green finance and climate-related regulation.
SPEAKER_02ES and Jessica, thank you both so much for joining us today. It's great to have you with us. Would you please introduce yourselves to the audience?
SPEAKER_03Thank you very much for having us with you. I'm Jessica Hargreaves. I've been with Litnators for 15 years in the energy and infrastructure practice. My background is predominantly in transactional project finance work with a little bit of infrastructure acquisition work as well. But these days I'm a knowledge lawyer in the same team. That just means that I provide technical advice to the deal teams. I look after our precedents and training and know-how, and I advise the teams on various legal and technical developments.
SPEAKER_01Hi everyone, my name is Isa Gayhon. I am a managing associate in LinkLators ESG team in London. I've been at LinkLators for just over six years now. And as you can tell from the name of my team, we work across a broad range of ESG areas with lots of different clients, and we cover both the advisory and the transactional side of the practice as well. Thank you very much for having me.
SPEAKER_00Thank you very much. But before we talk about regulations and disclosure, we need to take a step back and ask a very basic question. What do we actually mean when we talk about the energy transition? At its core, the energy transition is a shift from fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy, in line with climate targets set under the international climate change law, particularly Paris Agreement. But it's important really to say this clearly. This is not a quick or simple process. It's a long-term, complex, and above all, it's extremely capital intensive. So, Jessica, I would like to ask you: is that where a lot of climate conversations actually sometimes fall short? We often talk about targets, net zero by a certain year, uh emissions reductions, temperature limits, etc. But setting goals actually doesn't automatically make the transition happen, right?
SPEAKER_03Well, certainly I agree with you, Nicola, that the the energy transition itself is not a linear process. You know, I do believe it's established and it is happening, but you know, there are variations geographically as to the pace, you know, what is actually happening on the ground, but also to the ambition, you know, the the targets and ambitions that you've that you've flagged. And I think it's useful for us to remember that policymakers are you know operating in a really complex geopolitical context. And from a project perspective, you know, which is my background, that certainly makes it complex for project developers and lenders and investors, because to the extent that policy or stated ambitions or you know, even legal obligations, you know, unwound or amended, you know, it just becomes very hard for developers to evidence the economic viability of their projects over the long term. And obviously, these types of projects take a very long time to recoup the costs of the you know, the huge amounts of capital expenditure that's needed to make them happen. So if we look at the UK, uh the UK government has got its clean power 2030 target, that's its most immediate target, it's not long out now, and the government is looking to get to uh 95% of energy generation from clean and renewable sources. And there is a lot of discourse in the market, but also, you know, just in public discourse about you know, not only how do we get there, but is it right that we get there and how much does it cost us to get there? And as you've said already, you know, it takes huge amounts of money to build and operate a clean energy project, and it's not something that the governments or the private sector can either do or want to do alone, particularly in you know the very nascent stages of the markets that we're at in in a lot of these sectors. So uh the target the target is there, but how do we get there? Will it of itself make the energy transition happen? But in the UK, the government is looking at uh and has developed already a number of different business models which have different types of mechanisms in different sectors, but they're broadly designed to de-risk investment in clean energy projects. So, for example, you've got contracts for difference for renewables, you've got a regulated asset-based model for nuclear, we've got a cap and floor for uh scheme for long-duration energy storage projects, and they're all designed to de-risk these sorts of projects, bring in the investment in order to enable the government to get to its 2030 target and beyond that to the broader net zero target. So, you know, while I agree that agreeing climate goals and clean energy ambitions, you know, won't they won't in themselves make the transition happen, but those parameters and those signals are definitely needed to enable the policy development and the regulatory stability that creates that certainty within which developers and investors can commit the capital needed to get there.
SPEAKER_02Now, in terms of making the energy transition actually happen in practice, how would you describe the role and importance of companies in this complex process that you described?
SPEAKER_03Yeah, well, it is extremely complex. There are so many different stakeholders involved. And again, from my perspective, clean energy project developers, you know, the people building these offshore wind farms or the battery storage projects or the carbon capture facilities, you know, and the lenders and the investors to those projects, plus all the skills engineers and the contractors that you need, you know, to actually get these things built, they're the center of the clean energy transition because that's how it actually happens. And most companies, of course, are not those sorts of entities or developers or contractors. But the approach to you know, a standard corporate uh to the transition is absolutely crucial to it happening because you need normal corporates to be looking to sources of renewable energy, for example, to create the demand that you know allows the market, the clean energy market to grow. So in the UK, we see that coming through in uh things like uh corporate power purchase agreements. This is where corporations look to purchase green or renewable energy either directly from generators or via specific arrangements with their suppliers, which ensures that energy comes from green sources. And the market for CPPAs, corporate power purchase agreements in the UK, it's still relatively small still, but it's an important revenue stream for a lot of these clean energy projects, which allow them to be able to be bankable and to fund and to put the capital behind the project. But the government is conscious that actually this might be an even more important work stream to actually allow the market to grow. So the government is looking at the moment at whether or not it should intervene to support the CPPA market in the UK to facilitate the transition to net zero. So that's an example of the importance of uh corporations in actually making the clean energy transition happen. But you know, shareholders and and consumers can influence the corporations to make decisions to move in a sort of clean energy and sustainable direction, and that is also a key driver for the sector and for the transition. But this is the point at which we're straying very closely into ES's territory. So I'm going to let her take over on this one.
SPEAKER_01Thanks, Jess. I mean, I would only echo your comments that you know, capital providers and large companies and the strategies that they implement are going to be really important when it comes to thinking about the energy transition. From a regulatory perspective, from a legal perspective, the regulatory landscape all over the world has developed very, very quickly with lots of quite complex and interconnected rules in relation to sustainability activity, sustainability performance. And so, as a result, what that means is it impacts a broad cross-section of the economy. That means you then have different regulatory requirements impacting investors, impacting companies, impacting different actors in the value chain. And what that means is because they're all inevitably impacted by all of that, they are then changing the way in which they engage with each other. Um, and that becomes part of the feedback effect on the economy as a whole and then on the rewiring of those capital flows.
SPEAKER_00I would say actually that all you mentioned is actually the reason why climate regulation is increasingly focusing on companies. Regulation is trying to change the cost of doing business to make certain activities more expensive and the others more attractive. And this brings us to the European Union as a case study. EU is particularly interesting as it made its climate targets legally binding, inevitably leading to more intense regulatory action. There's also a growing debate about whether the EU is pushing climate policy at the expense of its own competitiveness. So it is a question I would like to start unpacking today. ES, from your perspective, how strong is the EU's regulatory pressure on companies when it comes to climate change? What are the main pillars of that framework? And are they actually changing corporate behavior in practice?
SPEAKER_01That's a great question. So, I mean, we're seeing different areas of the world taking varying approaches. The EU is quite interesting because I think they have taken a very specific approach, which I think we're seeing other jurisdictions modeling in a sense, um, and maybe not implementing as quickly or implementing all different bits of it. But to kind of unpack what they are doing at their core is effectively they're trying to create a comprehensive regulatory ecosystem that is designed to hit all parts of the economy. So linked to what I just said. So all sectors applying across jurisdictions, so laws of extraterritorial effect, and then also outside the conventional corporate boundaries, as we would imagine them from a legal perspective. So, i.e., by requiring companies not just to think about themselves, but also think about what's going on in their value chains and the true life cycle impacts of their business. And so when you have that broad picture in mind, what you see the EU doing is basically leveraging different regulatory tools to try to implement this or achieve this. And broadly, we see sort of three pillars or three themes in terms of what the EU is doing. And it's that's from a sustainability perspective, obviously, and the climate perspective. And that's effectively classification, transparency, and accountability. And when you sort of break down all of the different regimes that they've implemented over the past five, six years in particular, you see that most of them tend to fall under those pillars. So classification, if we start with that, the key regime there is EU taxonomy. Um, in case people have not heard of it, it's essentially supposed to be a dictionary of what is quote unquote green activity, um, according to lots and lots of very specific criteria, um, and in a very, very long document. It's not a mandatory classification that you have to use. So it's not the case that every single activity that happens within the EU has to be taxonomy aligned. But what they've done is they've built it into various regulatory regimes, such as the Green Bond Regulations, CSRD, and et cetera. And it allows a sort of way in which people can describe their activities and label them in a sense as being green under a consistent methodology. Then on transparency, I know we'll discuss more about this later, but there are a number of sustainability reporting requirements that have been put in place in the EU. There are rules around disclosures for sustainable investment funds, and then you also have regulation on greenwashing as well. And then finally, you have accountability, and there the core regime is the sustainability due diligence regime, which I know that we will also discuss later. And that very broadly imposes requirements on companies to do certain due diligence on sustainability impacts and also address those impacts. So at their core, all that these tools are really trying to do is rewire the economy and channel capital flows towards activities that are more sustainable by making it clear what activities are and aren't sustainable, what their performance is, etc. You give more information into the market, the market then uses that information, they decide whether to channel their capital elsewhere, so on and so forth. And then the other aspect, which I which you know we could do a whole other session on, but I know that we won't have time to today, is what we sometimes refer to as quote-unquote real economy measures, i.e., measures that go directly to supporting the decarbonisation or reduction in negative sustainable impact of specific activities. And so the EU has done a lot on that as well and is proposing lots of rules in that realm too. So we have plastics rules in particular, carbon pricing, things like the carbon border adjustment mechanism. They're trying to scale up the production of critical raw materials, scaling up clean tech, all of those things go to broadly the aim, as you said, of meeting those quite stringent targets that the EU has set itself in terms of becoming a net zero economy.
SPEAKER_02Thank you. There is certainly a lot we could discuss about in relation to this topic. But you mentioned greenwashing, so we could talk a bit more about that. Some may argue that corporations are trying to circumvent the sustainability pressure by presenting themselves as environmentally friendly or sustainable, but in reality their business operations don't fully support that image. So this brings us to greenwashing, a term that comes up a lot in climate discussions. In simple terms, greenwashing could be defined as creating the impression of sustainability, for example, through marketing, labels, or broad claims, without making changes that much match those claims. Does that sound like a fair way to describe greenwashing from your experience?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, that sounds about right. We are yet to have one specific definition of greenwashing from a legal perspective, and it can mean slightly different things in different contexts, but really at its core and what's reflected in most um regulatory regimes and then practices where we where we refer to greenwashing is as a term, it refers to a practice or an approach where you could potentially mislead stakeholders, and stakeholders include investors, customers, a range of people, on the extent to which a company's products or services or their business has a positive environmental or sustainability impact, and then which means you're failing to present a fair picture of those products or services or businesses. I think it's important to remember that greenwashing can arise in various formats, so in company reporting, but also in online statements and advertising, um, advertising of all types, so audio advertising, TV advertising, podcasts, um, Spotify, et cetera. We've um Spotify adverts, which people may have heard recently. We've also seen regulators around the world focusing on claims and IPO documents, which has been quite interesting, and also in fund product materials. And in terms of the claims that we've seen attract attention, like I said, it's the remit is quite broad. So it's really where there's a potential that you are not really giving the full picture of what you're doing, or you are potentially giving people the wrong picture about what you're doing. So, for example, a claim that you have a green or sustainable fund, but actually there are no real robust green or sustainable investment processes or investment criteria, or a claim about a business where you shout the praises of your particular sustainable activities, but you don't have any clear explanation that you that business may still be doing other activities which are not as sustainable, and therefore you're not giving a balanced picture of the overall business. Also worth noting that generally greenwashing as a term refers to climate and green claims. We do use it quite broadly, but you may also hear people referring to social washing. Obviously, that's in relation to social matters, blue washing, that's in relation to marine ecosystem type claims. And then there are also different sub-themes as well that sit underneath all of the washing as it were. And something that we have been seeing more of, or at least hearing about more of in the press's green hushing, where actually companies underreport or they hide their sustainability performance in order to avoid investor scrutiny.
SPEAKER_02Now, one of the ways the regulators can deal with the problem of greenwashing is through implementing mandatory disclosure rules, which are aimed at getting companies to say more about their sustainability risks, opportunities, and impacts, including those stemming from climate change.
SPEAKER_00And this actually leads us to discuss about the corporate sustainability reporting directive or CSRD. ES. Could you please explain what CSRD actually does in practice from a company's perspective? What are actually the changes under CSRD compared to earlier sustainability reporting?
SPEAKER_01Sure. So one of the main aims of the European Green Deal, in particular, as I just mentioned, was increasing corporate transparency and doing so by requiring companies to report more on their environmental and social impacts. So compared to the previous regime, that's that's effectively what's happened. CSRD has been introduced at aiming to increase that transparency, but also try to standardize the way in which sustainability information is being reported. So, in a nutshell, CSRD applies to a wide range of entities with EU nexus. That's important because it doesn't mean that only EU incorporated entities are caught. Sometimes entities that or companies that are not EU incorporated are also caught. So if they're listed on EU stock exchanges or if they have a significant number of employees and turnover. And in terms of what those in-scope companies need to do, they need to effectively prepare sustainability disclosures and include them in their annual reports. One of the key aspects of CSRD is that it requires companies to conduct a double materiality assessment at the outset to identify their impacts, risks, and opportunities across a range of environmental, social, and governance matters. And companies need to work out whether those matters are material from an impact materiality perspective, financial materiality perspective, or both. Very quickly, impact materiality is inside out, i.e., you focus on the impact of the company on people in the planet, financial materiality is outside in. So you're focusing on the impacts related to the company's own finances, their business continuity, their brand, et cetera. And then you need to work out, once you've worked out where those impacts lie, if something is both financial and financial and impact materiality, or rather hits both those thresholds, that's what you need to report and see a study. And then you need to report on that matter in relation to a broad range of what we call disclosure requirements. There are some requirements that apply to all disclosures, and then there are some requirements that only kick in depending on the topic that you've identified as being material. So things in particular in relation to own workforce or to anti-bribery or to emissions, so on and so forth. Final requirement, well not final requirement, but I guess the main one to get across is that that information has to be assured by an independent third party, and that's to enhance the reliability of the disclosures. In terms of what that means for companies now, it's that the ones that are caught in scope have to really seriously think about and conduct some quite in-depth assessments about their sustainability, impacts, risks, and opportunities. And I should say that's both positive and negative impacts, and then communicate those very clearly in their annual reporting to their stakeholders. And so, from our experience, while this has been a very time-intensive process for many in terms of scaling up and getting used to these new rules, it is also an opportunity to clarify messaging to the market about actually what are the key risks of that company's sustainability performance and what are the opportunities that they think they can capitalize on.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, that's perfectly clear from the regulatory perspective, but more from a broad perspective. Uh, am I right to say that climate disclosure is clearly not just about ticking boxes or adding more paperwork? It's about giving stakeholders a clear picture of where companies stand in the transition towards net zero and making them genuinely comparable on the market, right?
SPEAKER_01Yes, exactly.
SPEAKER_00I'd say that. Thank you. Thank you very much. So far, we've been talking about disclosure and transparency, but better information alone does not change behavior. That's where the corporate sustainability due diligence directive or CSCLD uh comes in. I would say that CSCLD moves beyond reporting, it turns climate risk into a corporate responsibility, not just a disclosure exercise. It doesn't stop at disclosure, it requires companies to respond to the risks, and uh that's why it's been seen as a next step after CSRD. Could you just walk us through CSCLD from a company's perspective again? And what would be like the main obligation set under CSEED?
SPEAKER_01So again, so it's similar to CSRD, but with slightly different tests and thresholds, which I won't go through now because we'll be here all day. It applies to companies with some kind of EU connection, C EU incorporated, or companies with significant activity in the EU. In terms of what those companies have to do, they have to perform due diligence to identify their adverse human rights and environmental impacts. But it doesn't stop there. They then have to take action to prevent, cease, or minimize those impacts. Then also where relevant, they have to remediate their impact. They also have to complete ongoing monitoring and assessment of those actions, of those due diligence policies that they have. And then they also have to communicate that in a high level in their annual reporting. And those requirements don't kick in just yet, they're coming in in the next couple of years or so. But what it means is that actually, if companies haven't already, they need to develop some quite comprehensive due diligence strategies to help them understand their exposure, but also make sure that their processes include the right types of frameworks for remedy and mitigation in particular, which may require more communication with other stakeholder groups and things like that. So we're finding that it's exactly as you said, it moves beyond reporting, is more focused now on what companies are actually doing and how they're managing their impacts. And it tries to see the process the whole way through. So not just identifying them, but actually working out what companies are going to do about those in practice.
SPEAKER_02Thank you. The CSRD and CS triple D have attracted a lot of attention and controversy as they've been seen as demanding and burdensome for businesses, especially large multinational ones. As part of its broader effort to improve European competitiveness, the EU decided to introduce significant amendments to simplify the CSRD and CS triple D through the omnibus package. After long negotiations, an agreement on these amendments was finally reached at the end of 2025. Yes, how would you summarize the key amendments made and their impact?
SPEAKER_01So I think it's important to start with the aim of the omnibus. And actually, there are there are multiple omnibus packages in relation to multiple different sustainability and non-sustainability regulations. So omnibus one, which is the one that we're talking about here, that that is a general reference people use, um, is focused on CSRD and CH Triple D. But but the aim is to simplify reporting requirements and to reduce the burden of reporting. The aim is not to really change the substance of the requirements that are set out in the regime, or at least that's what the EU Commission said when it started to pull together all these various omnibus packages. And I think for the most part, that has been reflected in quite a few of the agreed changes. So we see increases in scoping thresholds. So it means that smaller companies that were in scope are now out of scope, or at least are out of scope for the next couple of years. There are some reliefs for certain types of information that needs to be reported if companies are not able to obtain it all. I think the biggest change that people have been most focused on is on CS triple D. That used to have a transition plan requirement where specifically undertakings were required to adopt and put into effect a transition plan in line with very specific prescriptive requirements. That has been deleted in its entirety. So you don't longer have that requirement in CS Triple D. But it's important for people to note that that doesn't stop member states from adopting their own transition plan requirements at domestic level if they wanted to. Worth noting that while the UK is obviously not a member of the EU anymore, the UK government has been saying it will be consulting for a long time on whether transition planning should be mandatory in the UK. That just goes to show that that discussion hasn't ended. It's just that it's being taken in slightly different forums. And also, if you if you if companies do have transition plans and they're caught under CSRD, they still have to disclose them. So there is still some element, some way in which that requirement or that reporting on transition is caught in some way, shape, or form.
SPEAKER_00So despite all simplification of the CSRD and CS triple D, this underlies the broader point. Sustainability regulation in the EU is no longer just about disclosure or ambition. It's about embedding responsibility into the way companies are run. Am I right, Z?
SPEAKER_01Yes, yes, exactly. I think most large companies that were caught by these rules are still caught. The actual substance, particularly for CSRD, of the disclosure rules hasn't really changed significantly. And so we see a lot of this more as a recalibration as opposed to a rollback of the ambitions in the Green Deal.
SPEAKER_02Thank you. Now let's return to where we began. The energy transition depends on capital. Without investment flowing into renewable energy, clean technologies, and sustainable business models, the transition simply cannot happen. That's why green finance has become such a central part of the conversation. Jessica, from your perspective, what do we actually mean by green finance? What is it in its essence?
SPEAKER_03So it's a very broad umbrella term, I think. It refers to a range of different types of financial tools and mechanisms, but you know, they're all aimed at channeling funds towards decarbonisation initiatives, you know, environmental conservation initiatives, or more generally to the promotion of sustainable projects and sustainable businesses. And I suppose they're aiming to address uh the challenges of financing green and sustainable projects and businesses. And obviously, the EU has got a very sophisticated sustainable finance framework, and that does put in place you know this sort of systemic financial support for the energy transition and you know wider sustainability goals. I think it's worth noting that the effectiveness of green finance frameworks and the individual products can sometimes be called into question, but there are certainly studies which you know evidence that there is a tangible link between a nation's ESG performance and the availability of uh specific green finance uh tools. And I think it must be the case that to the extent these sorts of projects and initiatives you know weren't already happening because access to the capital to make them happening was difficult. But then having in place these sorts of frameworks and tools does actually make a positive difference. It enables these things to happen. And it also, on top of that, I think you know, it brings discussions uh on sustainability uh projects and initiatives and also green energy projects, you know, to the fore, into the conversation in a way which it might not otherwise have been, and certainly galvanizes the market in the direction of sustainable goals. But from a projects perspective, an energy and infrastructure perspective, we see a number of the loans uh that we work on uh for financing clean energy projects being made in accordance with the loan market association's green loan principles, and that is one example of a market-led structure for the provision of green finance. And so if you're lending in accordance with the green loan principles or borrowing in accordance with the principles, the proceeds of the loan that is being funded have got to be applied to an eligible green project. And the principles set up this sort of framework for transparency around how that project is evaluated and how the funds of the loan are applied and then also monitored throughout the life of the loan to make sure that the money is actually going to the green project that the lenders and the borrower have you know agreed upon. And so there's quite a bit of value in that sort of product. I think perhaps more particularly outside of the project finance and clean energy world, where you might have a company that actually looks to do something to improve its sustainability or its clean energy performance by, for example, you know, installing solar panels on the roof of a car park or something, and it's outside of its core business, but it's able to get access to the funding to make that happen because there's uh potentially a benefit in pricing where the banks offer these sort of uh products. And then also the banks are able to say that a part of their portfolio is dedicated to green finance, you know, that's that's a benefit to them, and the borrower is able to get this project down and also improve its own green credentials. So that was a sort of use of proceeds type product, which I think we see used relatively frequently in our world, but there are sort of more general corporate purposes type products which are more aimed at whole business improvement in terms of sustainability, which you know loops back to what we were saying earlier as you know, uh the sort of premise behind some of the larger structural and regulatory uh frameworks. But for example, you've got the loan market association sustainability linked loans, which is where a lender would actually have a look at the whole business of a company and agree with its borrower certain improvements to be made in its sustainability performance, and they would sit down and have a have a look at certain key performance indicators which can be agreed. And to the extent the borrower meets those key performance indicators throughout the life of the loan, the borrower will get an incentive on the pricing of the loan in order to achieve that. So it's a slightly different product, which is looking at a driving change in the business. But I must say, on those sorts of products, both parties have got to want to do it. It does take time and therefore money to agree and to document that um that desired change. But you know, we've just scraped the surface there on green finance. It's um a topic worthy of its own podcast, I think.
SPEAKER_02Thank you. I agree. That was, however, an excellent overview of the topic in short. To close the loop of this episode and bring us back to greenwashing, there is some discussion about how green finance can sometimes be misused as a form of greenwashing. Kind of like ES explained in the beginning, a company might, for example, secure a green loan to fund a renewable energy project while at the same time continuing to invest in fossil fuels elsewhere. This raises the question of whether green finance is always genuinely there to progress the green transition.
SPEAKER_00Thank you very much, Alyssa. This was a really good way to wrap up today's episode. This brings us to the end of today's podcast. What we've seen is that climate change is no longer a peripheral issue for companies. It actually directly affects how they operate, how they are financed, and how they are regulated.
SPEAKER_02Thank you very much, IS and Jessica. It's been very interesting to hear from you how the EU is trying to align law, markets, and capital to support the energy transition.
SPEAKER_00Yes and Jessica, thank you both very much for joining us today and sharing your insights.
SPEAKER_03Thank you for having us. Thanks for having us.
SPEAKER_00And thank you all for listening, Making Climate Law Work. We look forward to welcoming you back for our next conversation.