Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to our witnesses for being here.
We've spent much of our time and effort litigating the virtues of ESG investing. For those watching, those are the environmental, social and governance standards big companies claim in order to attract attention and investment.
Unfortunately, we're missing the point a bit. The politicization of ESG investing in the United States led to a very polarizing series of headlines. I'll read one from The New York Times: “How Environmentally Conscious Investing Became a Target of Conservatives: The business world has been pulled into partisan politics, with Republicans bringing their battle against socially conscious investing to Congress”.
For over two years, there was a conversation in the United States as to whether or not ESG investing is worthwhile. It was my hope that we could avoid this here on the committee, mostly because this study isn't supposed to be on whether or not ESG standards are worthwhile; rather, it's about to what degree companies need to be honest and truthful if they say they have renewed commitments to environmentally sound practices or a new governance practice that ought to be seen as more ethical. That's what disclosure is going to report on.
Monsieur Chenet, am I mistaken? Are sustainable finance disclosure and taxonomy about honesty, or more about litigating whether or not companies ought to be sustainable?