It's a key issue.
In Europe today, it's really central to all discussions. The principle of double materiality is being imposed in the progress reports of businesses, starting with the big ones and, little by little, the smaller ones. As you said, it's about analyzing the impact of activities on climate and the impact of climate on activities, and therefore on the financial performance of businesses and portfolios.
In my opinion, this is really a key issue, because the double materiality principle is precisely what will help companies look beyond their solely financial view of performance so that they can say that, of course, activities must perform well financially to be continued, but they must be carried out within the limits of feasibility. In other words, financial performance must be consistent with the prerequisite, a functioning biosphere. Otherwise, companies can turn out products and add value, but that serves no purpose if life is no longer possible in 10, 20 or 200 years. This raises the question of the ability to operate within planetary boundaries, to use that framework. Personally, I think that prerequisite must be established.
Obviously, if you're the first to jump in the pool when the water is cold, you look a little silly and you will probably want to get out. That's more or less what's happening today. Europe is starting to want to backpedal, because it's very complicated when it comes to competitiveness. However, we have to be able to say that we're not talking about five years, but a century and potentially more. It may hurt and there may be a price to pay in the short term, but if we don't do it, we're sure to pay a much heavier price in the long term. Until we accept that, it will be virtually impossible. As a result, today, those who can afford to make somewhat more radical decisions about their economy are those who think long term and don't necessarily have to use market incentives and look at their effects on stock market performance every quarter.