It's not net zero or bust, right? Every incremental improvement you make across the business will be beneficial and so, I don't think companies should be too phased by their 2050 target. I think where we're seeing the most success is companies who are just solving for 2030. You know, they've got a 30%, a 40% target, and that seems more achievable. Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are in the world. Welcome to episode 78 of the Sustainable Supply Chain Podcast, the number one show focusing exclusively on the intersection of sustainability and supply chains. I'm your host, Tom Raftery, and I'm thrilled to have you here today. A huge thank you to this podcast's, amazing supporters, Kieran Ognev and Alicia Farag. You folks really help to make this podcast possible. If this podcast regularly brings you value and you'd also like to help me keep the podcast going. Support starts at just three euros or dollars a month, less than the price of a coffee, and you can find a link in the show notes or at tinyurl.com/ssc pod. Now, you know how climate risk always feels vague, like this looming threat that's hard to pin down, let alone act on? Well, what if you could stress test your supply chain the same way you stress test your financials, spotting vulnerabilities before they turn into blackouts, blown budgets, or billion dollar disruptions. That's what my guest today, Ollie Carpenter, helps the likes of Nestle, Maersk and Coca-Cola do every day. He builds digital twins of their supply chains and shocks them floods, carbon taxes, policy, whiplash to see what breaks and more importantly, what to fix. Ollie's work sits at the collision of climate science, economics, and operational strategy. And in this conversation we unpack how risk analytics, when done right can turn sustainability from a cost center into a competitive advantage. But before we get into that in the next few weeks, I'll be chatting with Conrad Snover, CEO of Pro Curability, Steve Saltzgiver, director of Fleet Services at RTA Fleet, Sam Jenks, CRO, at Kodiak Hub. And Paul Burns, CEO of Maverick ai. So some great episodes coming up in the next few weeks, but now back to today's episode. And as I mentioned, my special guest on the show today is Ollie. Ollie, welcome to the podcast. Would you like to introduce yourself? Thank you very much, Tom. Yes. Hello, I'm, I'm Ollie. I'm a geographer by backgrounds. My work spans across natural catastrophe risk, climate science and economics. And I'm part of the founding team at Risilience, which is a startup which split out from the University of Cambridge, Judge Business School about five years ago with the purpose of delivering corporates with sustainability intelligence, by which we mean climate change and nature related risk analytics that help corporates to justify the business case for sustainability. So we work with the likes of Nestle and Burberry, other kind of large corporates with complex supply chain challenges. They're interested in decarbonising, but also understanding the world around them and how climate and environmental change is going to affect them. Okay, and what got you into this? So I was at the university in Cambridge I guess around five years ago. My research was on actually recovery after disasters, and so we were interested in the aftermath of big events, how can you quantify the effects of those and what does it mean to economies and then kind of also to businesses. So we started to look at how do you translate all the crazy stuff that goes on around the world into financial impacts to businesses. And we started to build a framework around that. This was around kind of 2019, 2020 when the TCFD or the task force for climate related financial disclosures started to hot up. And so climate change risk became a thing. And so, as we were developing our framework, we were trying to understand how you map external changes to companies. The climate change risk conversation was hotting up, and so that seemed the obvious direction to go. And we started with working with a couple of, of corporates to, to test our ideas and, I'm pleased to say that, that the company has been quite successful and we're now working with a, a large array of companies. We have a software platform, which helps em to manage it kind of au autonomously. But I think it's a very interesting challenge and I, I, I've been quite excited about where sustainability and, and climate change risk has, has gone over the last couple of years. Can you walk us through what kind of analytics you are doing for your customers? What does that mean for a global business trying to get to net zero, for example? Yeah, absolutely. We talk about climate change risk in terms of physical and transition risk. So physical is the, is the typical, you know, floods and natural disasters that might affect your direct operations and your supply chain. We're also quite interested in transition risk. So as the world transitions, what are the changes that a company might face as a result of, you know, policy change, technology change, market changes, and how public sentiment might drive impact across their business as well. So we, we see climate change risk and, and, and nature related risk as well. It went through those through two lenses. And I think the reason why risk is, is really helpful and is motivating for companies. It's not just a reporting obligation, but it can also provide quite a powerful lens for companies to understand the downside. So what, what's the worst that can happen if you know, if you don't take any action? And, you know, there are some hard truths that climate change and, and the reasons we're trying to address these issues are because it, it will cause impacts increasingly over time. But it also gives quite a compelling way of presenting opportunities to companies. So you can say, you know, if you reduce your emissions or if you kind of take adaptation or resilience measures, you can reduce those risks, but also capitalise on the range of opportunities that a company might see. So, you know, sustainable preferences that consumers are shifting to or other opportunities across the market. So. Yeah, I, I think risk is quite a compelling language to work with. It's financial, so it's the way you can speak to the CFO and motivate the business case in that way. And, and your question also related to, to net zero. So this is very linked to transition planning, decarbonisation planning. There, are two sides of the same coin, right? Because you you want to know what's, what's the impact if you don't act, but also, how can I understand the cost benefit of taking action to, reach net zero and decarbonise? Mm. Yeah. I'm not sure if you caught the news, but we had a big blackout here in Spain a couple of months back, and I happened to be able to stay, pretty much online, just because I have an EV . And I was able to use that, the, the power from the battery that to drive the critical devices in the home. And I gotta think for companies that you're advising, is the likes of renewables and onsite energy storage, something that they're considering now as we're increasing risks, through things like climate or through things like big outages like we had here in Spain or other Black swan events? Yeah, I think that's, that's really interesting. Sustainability and resilience are quite closely coupled, right? So yes, companies are definitely investing in things like renewables on site because it means they have more control and more resilience to changes that happen outside of their control. So if you control your power sources, then of course you don't need to worry about the, the grid going down. And that, of course has strong decarbonisation benefits as well. So I think we see that in the case of direct operations, but also across a company's supply chain. They're thinking about how you can both simultaneously solve for sustainability, but also build more resilience, adapt to the changes that we see around us. I think those two things go hand in hand. And apart from that, how are companies starting to think differently about physical versus transition climate risks today compared to, say, five years ago when you kicked off? I think we've had a lot of success talking about transition risk as we've, you know, seen the case for Net zero particularly after, you know, recent COPs. And the Glasgow COP was, very significant in driving the net zero agenda. That motivated the case to understand transition risk, and we've seen the whole economy, the whole market, shift their language towards net zero. I would say that it's more of an adjustment to understand that that framework, physical risk is more fundamental, right? It's not a new thing companies have experienced disasters for, for as long as they've been operating. And so flood risk and other types of risk are, are just, you know, normal business practice. What is important about climate change is that those events are becoming more frequent, more severe, and so companies do really need to understand those. And I think we're finding now as the sustainability conversation becomes more complicated, there's a lot of kind of policy and regulatory change, which is, making that a difficult thing to think about. Physical adaptation is a, is a fundamental thing. You've got to adapt to changes in the climate. We're already seeing the world around us change. We're seeing, wildfires in the US as you said, there's, blackouts in Spain, which are maybe not entirely climate related, but there is a environmental element there. And, and so I do think it's, the conversation is moving forward to, yes, we've got to mitigate climate change, we've got to get our emissions in hands, but ultimately the world is changing and we've got to adapt to that new world. Okay. And what's an example of a physical climate risk that most companies still underestimate? We look a lot at agricultural supply chains. And there are, you know, very significant changes to the availability of different raw materials. Look across the world, all the different crops and agricultural materials, they are hugely exposed to climate because, they require good conditions to grow. And we find that lots of different crops, so things like coffee, cocoa, the crops in particular that are quite origin sourced, you know, they're localised and you, you need particular conditions to grow, they're changing quite, quite dramatically and I think we're finding that those risks are only starting to be realised. Companies have not factored that into their thinking until now, and that they're starting to ask those questions. And I think there are some quite frightening answers in certain cases. And on the flip side, what's the transition risk that's often overlooked in boardrooms? We have lots of interesting conversations about consumer preference change. We see across the market a shift towards sustainable thinking. And of course, you know, every, everybody's talking about wanting to be more sustainable. There is a willingness to act there. When we talk about a company's bottom line, they kind of say, well, yeah, we're not sure we're actually seeing it in, in financial terms, you know. Consumers are not backing up their intention with, with action. And so I think that's quite an interesting conversation. But actually we're seeing pretty strong trends. You know, there are new disruptors in the market who are offering sustainable alternatives. They're going pretty well and the incumbents are, having to respond pretty quickly to, to, to react to that. Nice, and viewing sustainability through a risk lens can be a powerful motivator, obviously. Why do you think that clicks more than the traditional ESG narratives? I, I think because it speaks directly to the C-suite, the CFO needs hard financial language to be able to make budgeting decisions and to understand, what's going on around them. And I think typically, or let's say historically, sustainability has been kind of siloed in that you know, CSR type role where it's, it's more about doing good then a company's own value. What risk and financial quantification can do is, is put it into the language of the C-suite and it shows them that it's a material thing. It, it matters to their bottom line. They've got to bake it into their core business planning. It's not just something you can treat on the side. Okay, so basically rather than being all fluffy, something that might happen in the future, this is actually putting boundaries around it and saying it is this amount of euros or pounds or dollars per year increasing over X amount of time, or you know, y loss of business or whatever. Exactly. And so, yeah, the approach that, that we take at Risilience is to use a few kind of core financial metrics. So things like earnings value, and there's various ones out there that can do this. But ultimately you're trying to say. Yes, your bottom line, your cash flows, your balance sheet is going to be affected by all the things that, that are happening around you, and you've not baked that into your plan. You know, your, financial plan as you see it, is not fit for purpose because it's not accounting for all the things that are happening around you. Okay, and this is the Sustainable Supply Chain podcast. So I want to dig into supply chains for a moment, because let's be honest, that's where a lot of the emissions hide out, right? Absolutely. And we find that most of our conversations are about supply chains. You know, typically scope one and Scope two are company's operations are, are kind of in hand by now. You know, it's, a lot of it is the low hanging fruits. And so sustainability teams in corporates are investing the vast majority of their time in, into their supply chains, and I guess also downstream as well. So the, the end of life and what sits after you've sold the product out the door? Okay, and you talked to Scope One and Scope two, which as you say are relatively straightforward. Scope three notoriously tricky. How are leading companies getting better at tackling Scope Three, especially across, you know, sprawling supply chains, which the larger companies typically have. Yes. I think they're investing significant resources into just capturing the information first of all. Talking to your suppliers. You know, historically the information hasn't been there and so I think we're now seeing that there is, a fast growth in available data to use, and that means that companies are switching from, very coarse estimates of their supply chain to, to real direct data, which of course is, is hugely powerful. The challenge we are seeing now is that companies are hard pressed to actually manage that data. You know, they've got, in many cases, thousands of suppliers. You need some sort of system, which isn't a spreadsheet to be able to understand what's going on around you, identify all the different hotspots and, and that's not just your kind of tier one supply chain, right? That's right up to the tier three, tier four and particularly where the raw material might be produced. So, you know, I talked about agriculture. A lot of their fashion companies footprint, for example, sits in their cotton supply chain. And so you've gotta go right back to source to be able to understand that. I think those information flows are still pretty nascent. You know, they've not got complete information by any means, but I do think we're seeing some really encouraging signs of, of supplier engagement that supports that engagement and yeah, ultimately traceability, which supports decision making. Because the, the other important point here is that you can solve for data quality forever, but that's not actually taking any action, right? So I also think that the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. Companies have probably enough information to start engaging in their supply chain, even if they don't have a perfect understanding of what's going on inside. That they've got to engage and invest time in taking action, not just collecting data. I came across one company. They were a resort in Vegas, if I remember correctly, and what they were doing was they were going out to all their suppliers sending consultants to all their suppliers to help their suppliers come up to speed on how to quantify their scope one and two.'cause it's obviously your supplier's Scope one and two becomes your scope three. So I thought that was an interesting strategy. Have you seen any other strategies similar to that or other interesting ones that you have come across to to get the suppliers reporting back?'cause it's always tricky having suppliers give you that data, right? Absolutely. Yeah. And I have seen, various companies putting people inside just like you've said to, do that. I think there's a lot of technology that's supporting this change. And, you know, there are supply chain engagement platforms that you can use and send your supplier an information sheet. I think that's, that seems to be quite common practice. And I, I guess there's kind of the hard stuff and the soft stuff. The hard stuff is you put it into your code of conduct and your contracts and you enforce it. You, you make it quite a hard condition of, of working together. I'm probably more in favor of the softer stuff, which is, you know, just talk, talk to each other, get on the ground and, and help them out and, and learn from each other as well, you know? A big corporate with all that buying power has a lot of experience and they have a lot of suppliers. They can point to pilot projects that are working really well. They can point to, what experiences they're seeing and the leaders across their supply chain can teach those who are, I guess, a little further behind. And is it the procurement organisation typically who are dealing with suppliers and, getting them up to speed on the requirements of the organisation? I think so, yeah. I think we've found that procurement are the, the key holders and sustainability functions of businesses are now very closely interwoven with procurement functions. Or you might get teams of procurement or sustainable procurement teams who have the job of owning that relationship. So it's, it's kind of, there's multiple stakeholders involved. It's not just about, you know, driving the price down negotiating the commercials. There's also conditions that the sustainable procurement team can, put to, to drive a more holistic engagement beyond just, you know, the commercial one. Okay. And when you're helping companies stress test their supply chain, what does that look like in practice? We build a digital twin of a company which captures their financial footprint, obviously. So we, we need to understand what their financial plan looks like, and we do that, you know, out 10 years ahead. So it, gets quite, speculative in some ways. And we marry that with a physical footprint. So where your operations and your supply chain sit. So that could be your key facilities, your suppliers locations, your transport networks and logistics routes, right down to sort of the, farm where you might procure your cotton from. We build that, that physical footprint and then marry that to an environmental footprint. So we build a fairly holistic picture across their entire value chain. And then what we do at Risilience is shock that digital twin. We have lots of different scenarios, so we like to call it science and scenarios. You know, we have a lot of our models, which, capture different types of external risks. So I talked about physical and transition risks. You can, you can have, let's take carbon pricing is is an example of a, a risk that companies are facing. You can project future carbon price changes and then shock that against the digital twin or the representation of the company and say, okay, in this scenario, if this external change happens, how does the digital twin respond to that? And what are the additional costs? And, how can you represent that in financial terms ultimately? And are there common red flags that pop up when companies start mapping their supply chain risks? Yeah, I think there are a number of red flags across both the physical and and transition. I would say typically we see regulation is a big area of concern, and in particular that's because if you're a global company, then you've got a very spread chain across a number of different jurisdictions, and there's a very disparate policy landscape. So you're trying to manage, your different types of risk and your supply chain across many different jurisdictions regulatory environments. I. And so we spend a lot of time talking about policy. You know, we can condense that into things like carbon price, which is good because it's easily quantifiable, but of course it's quite a simplification of what regulation actually looks like. You know, there's all sorts of things, whether it's happening in the EU or China or whatever else. And so boiling that into some measurable metrics. Is is very important. On the physical risk side, I would say red flags occur on a kind of location by location basis. So, you know, the benefit of doing an analysis like this is that you can see your entire portfolio of locations, whether it's your own or your suppliers. And identify the ones that are at most severe risk. So you can say, well, hey, that's next to a river, and that river's projected to see much more frequent floods in the future, and therefore that's a hotspot. And so I think, there's two levels. There's the enterprise level view of hotspots across my entire value chain, and I would say they are financially, material hotspots. But then there's the more kind of operational hotspots where you're trying to understand, how will a day to day running be affected by different types of events, and that's, that calls for more location specific and detailed granular analysis. And we've talked a lot about climate and climate risks so far, but nature is kind of crashing the party too. How are the two interconnected in your work? I think they're very interconnected and we can use the same language, so we can talk about transition and physical risk. But there's also the kind of double materiality perspective, which complicates the picture a little bit. By which I mean, you know, it's not just about how the outside world affects your bottom line, but it's also very much how you're affecting the outside world. We use the same framework, so we have a digital twin, and we also capture other environmental metrics. So that could be how much water you're using directly or across your supply chain, where you interact with biodiversity and, you know, land use change and that sort of thing is, is a key driver. Obviously it is a very complicated picture. I think the way we we see this and engage with, the companies we're working with is to try and put them on the same page. You know, you, you can't talk about climate change risk to agriculture in isolation of biodiversity loss. You, you've got to have a holistic view. And so in our language, we try and put those into, into single models. But I think, more holistically companies have got to think about, an integrated framework. When you talk about decarbonisation, for example, you've got to capture the, the co-benefits or, or the potential impact of a decision on all the metrics across nature. So whether that's water use, whether it's impacts on biodiversity and, and companies are getting better at this, and I guess the regulation is, is supporting this as well. So, the more holistic sustainability reporting requirements mean that companies have to put this all together. I would say it's still quite disjointed at the moment. So, to some extent companies still have climate here and nature here. The leaders have got quite integrated strategies and they're talking about 'em together. Good. That's good to hear. Now it's good that you mentioned regulations 'cause it feels like half the battle for corporates are just keeping up with the acronyms. TNFD, CSRD, ISSB, C triple D, is all this regulation helping drive action or just creating a fog of compliance? I think it really has helped to drive action and you can trace that right back to TCFD, right? We, you know, I mentioned that at the start. That was, I think, one of the early motivators of understanding your own carbon footprint and understanding the risks that are happening around you. Particularly in the EU, it's placing a fairly hefty burden on companies. And you could argue that in some cases companies are spending more time responding to regulatory requirements and reporting requirements than they are taking action. But ultimately, it does provide a very comprehensive framework to act, and it puts companies on the same kind of playing field. Right. So, it rewards the front runners and it penalises those who are laggards. And so I, I think that the reporting requirements are extremely important. I don't think it should be a company's own fo only focus. You know, when we talk to companies, we, we do talk a lot about compliance with reporting, but ultimately, we're trying to use that information to build a strategic business case, and that's, that's why this reporting exists, right? It's not to just share information for the hell of it. Companies are wanting to understand this data. Investors and other stakeholders are wanting want to understand this data because that data represents the actual changes that you've got to understand and make across your business. Okay. It's the old, if you don't measure it, you can't manage it. Absolutely. Okay. And are the companies, you know, how are they adapting to new frameworks like TNFD or CSRD? Are they overwhelmed or are they finding strategic value in them? I think a bit of both. Over the last few years we've seen a lot of the overwhelmed, I think. And yeah, it is, it is great. You know, we're now talking at a time when the first tranch of companies have started to publish CSRD reports, so we're, we're seeing this in action now, and I think that's great. Where this is going is a much more integrated picture where sustainability teams, you know, they've got reporting baked into their typical practices. And we find there's a cadence where once a year everyone goes, oh my God, it's reporting season. There's a lot of work to do. But that doesn't stand in the way of the more strategic decisions. So I think, we found in one business, I'm thinking of they've got a reporting function, they've got an actions function, and they've got a strategy function. And those three all talk very closely together. But it means you are not always overwhelmed by all the things you've got to put down on paper. Nice. Okay. And what's your take on the current state of transition planning? Are businesses being ambitious enough or are they playing it too safe? I think that the, the ambition is there, right? About 60% of global companies have now got net zero plans, or sorry, net zero ambitions, stated targets to commit to net zero. Have they all backed it up with the transition plan yet? No, but I, I think there's a lot of good progress being made in, in that area. Some of it is driven by regulation and, you know, and so we've got currently for the moment it's, it's become gonna become an obligatory requirement in the EU to have a transition plan. And that is very important. I think we're maybe over solving for, the idea of net zero and I think this idea of net zero becomes sometimes insurmountable. Companies go, well, that's gonna be entirely impossible. I think it's not net zero or bust, right? Every incremental improvement you make across the business will be beneficial and so, I don't think companies should be too phased by their 2050 target. I think where we're seeing the most success is companies who are just solving for 2030. You know, they've got a 30%, a 40% target, and that seems more achievable. Let's not plan in 2030 for things that we don't know are gonna happen yet. Let's, let's try and do what we can do right now and take a a three to five year view. And I think that's where we see the most effective transition plans, which is what can we do right now based on what we're seeing on the ground? How can we invest and make a few bets, take some risk to, to transition? But let's not get too ahead of ourselves. Good. Good. And how do you advise companies to plan for a low carbon future? That's riddled with uncertainty with tech shifts, policy swings, consumer behavior, Donald Trump? Scenarios, I think is the answer to that question. You know, scenario analysis is quite common practice in sustainability analytics and reporting now. And the reason for that is because you can't plan for the future. Climate policy can swing in, in a day as we've seen, and you've got to be prepared, prepared for different future scenarios. You know, we talk about orderly and disorderly scenarios. So, you know, what if the world all moves together, or what if every region goes on its own and does its own thing. I think you've got to build decisions that decisions of least regrets, right? Things that you know are good business practice and that, that brings us back to things like adaptation. You know, you can build resilience, supply chain resilience, which helps to mitigate risks, but also has the co-benefit of decarbonising. We also use scenarios specifically for things like understanding how your uncontrollable emissions might change, so you know, some, something about your scope three, but if you're buying from the steel industry say, you might not have a good idea how the steel industry is going to decarbonise over time. You can talk to them you know, you can do that supply chain engagement thing, but ultimately you've got to have some feel for the, the decarbonisation trajectory of the steel industry over time. And so. We also use scenarios to say, okay, if the economics and the technology stacks up, we might expect to see the sector decarbonise at this rate. And maybe you could bake that into your own plan so you make some reasonable optimistic assumptions about what could happen. And then let's assume that your trajectory follows that and you can get the benefits of what's happening outside of your direct control as well. So I think what I'm trying to say is it's not all about you know what you as an individual company are doing, you also get the benefits of what the economy is doing, and so scenarios can be quite a useful tool to to help that. And you've worked with some of the world's biggest brands as you mentioned earlier. What's one story that stuck with you where you thought, yes. that's what progress looks like? I think there's a few cases. I've seen the light bulb moments where, senior managers, senior leaders, CFOs have gone, oh, that's what we're going to lose. And I think, you know, we go back to the business value of sustainability. The scare factor is the moment a, you know, senior leader goes, oh, I get it. Climate change is gonna hurt us. And that, that's quite a powerful moment. And I've seen that across a few companies where we present some pretty shocking numbers to them and say, Hey, you could lose, you know, 50% of the value of your company over the next five years. Okay. That might be a bit of an extreme case, but it's plausible it in a scenario. Right. And then. we get that light bulb and then we can talk about, okay, so what, what do we do to mitigate it? I, I've seen a lot more, I guess more practical points where it's marrying this kind of high level view of, I've said make the business case with what's actually happening on the ground. And so, where you can look at projects that are happening, whether it's kind of supply chain engagement or regenerative agriculture policies or whatever it might be, when you can see that in action and marry that back to the kind of story we are saying, you can say, Hey, there's a lot of benefit, there's upside that's going to mitigate the risk, but also present you a whole load of opportunities to grow your market, to appeal to your customers. I think that is also what motivates me and it makes me quite excited. And what's one trend or insight you think climate conscious business leaders are not paying enough attention to, but should? I've talked about the kind of consumer trends already, and I think companies are quite focused on what their, their customers are doing or their consumers doing, and they're equally focused on what their investors are, are saying. And that's obviously a, a strong motivator. But there's also a, a broader range of, of stakeholders that have value and weight in these conversations I think that would include a company's own employees. And I think we've seen that internally companies have a lot of motivation from their employees to make positive changes in sustainability terms. And that whole range of, you know, collective stakeholders is, is quite a powerful motivator. I don't think companies are paying enough attention to the more diverse range of stakeholders that they could. Okay. Very good. And if we check back in five years, what would success look like for you in terms of how companies manage climate and nature-based risks? I, I would like to see sustainability embedded across a business, and that might mean that, sustainability functions actually cease to exist. It's just normal business practice. I think that would be a nice aspiration. I actually think that's not gonna happen. I think you need to have a sustainability team, which keeps, whipping the troops into shape. And a, and a, you know, a more holistic view of a business plan. So when you talk about financial reporting and non-financial reporting, they're, quite segmented still. I would like a financial function of a business to account for all of the external changes, all of the sustainability related issues when they're doing their core business planning. I think that would be a key strategic move. More operationally, I guess just getting stuff done, putting transition plans into action and seeing all the great projects that we, we talk about being invested in. And, and ultimately, driving decarbonisation driving positive nature impacts. Okay, and maybe it's not that the sustainability team goes away, but their functions become absorbed by the CFO's team. That, that that could be it. And I don't know whether finance is the right per place for a sustainability person. I'm not sure I'd like to be reported up to the, to the CFO all the time. But I, I do think those functions need to be very, very closely entwined. If I was saying the CFO's organisation is just because the rigor that's being required of reporting now is such that it's approaching the same rigor as reporting finances, or it should be. Yeah, exactly. And, and you kind of, you have, you know, carbon accountants who do the equivalent job of a, a financial accountant. there are many parallels in the way a finance team and a sustainability team works, but I guess I'd go back to the point on action. It's not just about reporting and accounting, it's about, doing, and that means that you've also got to be plugged into the operational functions of the business, whether it's procurement or or the supply chain or operational functions of business. A left field question for you, Ollie. If you could have any person or character, alive or dead, real or fictional as kind of a champion for risk-based analysis, who would it be and why? This is gonna be a really cliche answer, but I, I think I've, I've got to say David Attenborough because I think he, he's the person who got me doing what I'm doing today. You know, I, I was a geographer at, at university. That's because I, cared about the world around me, and I watched David Attenborough documentaries growing up. I think, he is a bit of a cliche answer when you talk about environmentalism, but I think I, I've got that connection and he's really driven me to do what we do and I think he's made the world change as well. So we saw, The Blue Planet documentary, which happened, I guess in the kind of late 2010s that caused a tidal wave for plastics regulation. And, you know, it really changed how we looked at packaging and plastics. And I, I think that's a fairly impressive change made by a single person. Fantastic. It's actually the first time someone's mentioned him when I've asked this question, so, well done you. We're coming towards the end of the podcast now, Ollie, is there any question I haven't asked that you wish I had or any aspect of this we haven't covered that you think it's important for people to be aware of? I guess I'm surprised we haven't talked more about sustainability backlash. And you know, we're, we're kind of operating at a time when it's probably getting harder to to have these conversations. You know, companies are razor focused on their tightened purse strings. There are all sorts of crazy things happening in the world, which means that sustainability is maybe prone to drop down the agenda. And actually, you know, we are finding that we have to fight harder to substantiate sustainability, transition planning, all that sort of stuff. My response to that would be again, on the kind of risk lens this stuff's gonna happen whether we like it or not, and we've got to plan for uncertain futures. We know that the regulatory environment might be less conducive to really ambitious transitions, transformations of businesses. But there's still a hell of a lot that a company can do if they put their mind to it. And so, yeah, I I, I'm surprised we haven't talked about it more. I, I don't necessarily want to get into sustainability backlash and politics, but it's an important part of the conversation because I think sustainability managers are having to justify their roles more and more in certain cases. Yeah. Cool. Nice. Okay, good. Ollie, if people would like to know more about yourself or any of the things we discussed in the podcast today, where would you have me direct them? You can find me on, on LinkedIn Oliver Carpenter, on LinkedIn and via Risilience. So you know, we, we publish blogs and a lot of thought leadership on sustainability and, and climate related risk. You can find us at risilience.com. That's Risilience with an i, we spell it wrong and now I can't correctly spell the name Risilience, but we, we've stuck with it. So yeah, I, I'll direct you there. Fantastic. I'll put those links in the show notes as well so everyone has access to them. Great. Okay, Ollie, that's been really interesting. Thanks a million for coming on the podcast today. Thanks very much Tom. Okay. Thank you all for tuning into this episode of the Sustainable Supply Chain Podcast with me, Tom Raftery. Each week, thousands of supply chain professionals listen to this show. If you or your organization want to connect with this dedicated audience, consider becoming a sponsor. You can opt for exclusive episode branding where you choose the guests or a personalized 30 second ad roll. It's a unique opportunity to reach industry experts and influencers. For more details, hit me up on Twitter or LinkedIn, or drop me an email to tomraftery at outlook. com. Together, let's shape the future of sustainable supply chains. Thanks. Catch you all next time.