Pricing Migrating Climate Risk With First Street

Published Jun 19, 2024, 11:45 AM

Flood, fire and wind risks have begun migrating across the US, creating a need for better home insurance pricing and analytics. On this week’s episode of ESG Currents, BI senior analyst Andy Stevenson is joined by Dr. Jeremy Porter, chief scientist at First Street, to discuss ways of getting better climate data into the hands of consumers, companies and federal agencies.

This episode was recorded on June 3.

ESG has become established as a key business theme as companies and investors seek to navigate the climate crisis, energy transition, social mega trends, mounting regulatory attention and pressure from other stakeholders. The rapidly evolving landscape has become inundated with acronyms, buzzwords, and lingo, and we aim to break those down with industry experts. Welcome to ESG Currents, your guide to navigating the evolving ESG space, one topic at a time. Brought to you by Bloomberg Intelligence, part of Bloomberg's Bloomberg's Research department with five hundred analysts and strategists working across all major world markets. Our coverage includes over two thousand equities and credits, as well as outlooks on more than ninety industries and one hundred market in disease, currencies and commodities. I am Andy Stevenson, senior ESG analyst and your host for today's podcast. Welcome to the podcast, Doctor Jeremy Porter, chief scientist at first Street dot org.

Thank you for coming on, Andy, thanks for having me on. I'm really excited to talk about the work we do at First Street.

That's great. First Street is a nonprofit. For those of you who are not familiar with the organization focused on climate risk analysis, can you please tell me, Jeremy a little bit about First Street and your approach to helping people better understand the climate risks we face today.

Yeah, so First Treat has been around for about seven years now. I was part of the founding team and really when we started, there were a handful of us and our primary goal was trying to figure out a way to quantify and communicate climate risk in a way that was actionable accessible. Oftentimes, I come from the academic world. Climate research ends up in climate journals. Most people can't understand the findings that come from that. So our goal was, you know, how can we take a group of scientists, a group of communication experts build tools that give people the ability to understand climate risk, but more than that, understand how is it going to impact them personally? Is it going to impact them directly? And we found through focused groups that people respond to that and regardless of you know what side of the aisle they come from in terms of partisanship, people care about their pocketbooks, they care about their properties, and they care about things that they can observe, if they can see water in the street, if they can see wildfires on the hills beside their homes. People are responding to those So we really sort of latched onto that approach and build a series of tools, reports, data products that give us the ability to quantify climate risk to your average person all the way up to the academic scientist.

That's great, and we can talk about climate risk. Obviously, there's many timeframes that you can be talking about here. You could be talking about the history, which we've already seen and it's very quantifiable. But for end users that you were talking to, how long are they looking into the future. Do they care about the next five years, the next ten years, the next two years, the next eight months.

That's a really good point. And you know, depending on who you're working with, they care about different different time periods. We really found that, you know, when we started doing the work, people would say to us, yeah, climate change is going to be really bad, but I'm not going to be around in twenty one hundred, so they you know, there wasn't this urgency around the topic. But we found that people responded to relatively short term climate climate projection, something like a thirty year projection aligns really well in the US context with mortgages and the way people think about their own properties. And so when we started to build those models out in what feels like a relatively short term projection, but to some people, you know, three decades can still be you know, a pretty large amount of time. And we were able to find in that amount of time quantifiable impacts of climate and changing climate or negatively impacting people's property values and negatively impacting people's risk and exposure. We found that people really responded to that. We ended up building a tool that we were able to put all of this data on. It was called risk factor dot com, and people could go in, they could type in their address, they could understand risks of their own property, and then they could start to think about, how's that risk going to impact me, not only today but during the life of this mortgage.

And let's say over the last five years or so, since you've been doing this work, would you say that is becoming an increasing concern. I mean, you're seeing more people, you know, use those kind of tools and actually maybe even using them to make decisions, you know, like economic decisions.

Yeah, it's been really interesting to watch this develop over the last five years or so. When we first launched our model, we were building a tool called risk Factor. Again, we had all of our data there, we weren't getting the eyeballs on it the way that you know we products that had already been built up our already have a following and already have site visitors might have. But one of the big breaks that we have is we ended up integrating our data on realtor dot com. And realtor dot com looked at the data. They loved the idea of providing more information to people that were looking to buy a home. And people actually in the ab testing were looking at it, they were using the data. They at first were just curious about it, you know, what is this new climate environmental data? But we've seen research come out in recent years since we've integrated also on redfin dot com, where people are actually looking at the data and making decisions about where to live. And so the paper that I'm referencing specifically was an ab test where half of the people that visited the site were shown climate data, the other half weren't shown climate data, and the group that were shown the climate data systematically searched for lower risk properties based on the flood risk scores of the home. So right away you start to say, well, not only are we giving people this information, is it a cool additional feature to get people onto the sites, but people are actually making actionable decisions about the data once they have the information and they're made aware, they're making climate informed decisions about where to relocate.

Yeah, it's really interesting because it's also I mean, it's obviously can be very expensive if that goes on, to have flooding happen to your home. It's stuff. It's things you just don't want to deal with if you can avoid it. Right, So there's sort of two angles there, I'm sure, especially these days, there's a lot of talk about insurance premiums going up across the country for various risks. Right, it's not just hurricanes, which is sort of where people's brains kind of land, but it's also fire risk, flood risk. You know, these are things that your tool helps inform people about, but it gets them to think a little bit more about, you know, planning the actual cost of the home, right and part of that cost is insurance, you know, I mean, and rebuilding is also part of that cost. Right for some people more than others. But still it's very hard to find out part of the country that's not hit recently in a meaningful way that doesn't give you at least some pause to think about how to budget for this, right.

Yeah, And that's a really good point. And I think one of the things that we found as we were doing this research was that there just aren't publicly available data sources that people can go to to understand their own climate risk. So a lot of people have what we reference internally in our organization as unknown climate risk. They have wildfire risks, they have wind risk, they have flood risk. In many cases it's not captured by the FEMA zones. And when you don't have that type of risk, you don't protect yourself against it. The insurance companies either aren't pricing it into the homeowners insurance costs, femas not mandating that the individuals have a flood insurance policy, and without that risk awareness, we also see an overvaluation of the property. So there is this climate debt that exists in our own models in about a quarter of the residential real estate market, where that overvaluation just hasn't been and realized yet and generally what happens is it'll be through spiking insurance costs, or it'll be through the actual exposure to some kind of a climate hazard, and then that point of transaction, all of a sudden, people are aware that this happens in this area, and because it happens in this area, people are negotiating for lower home sales or ultimately property values aren't growing as fast in those areas as they are in other places. So we are starting to see climate risk make its way into the real estate market. The insurance industry, as you mentioned, is the mechanism that is the first to really explicitly price in climate in a way that we can see statistical, clear statistical signals in the data. But for your regular homeowner, if we circle all the way back to the question, there really isn't a lot of places where people can get this information freely and publicly and in a way that allows them to make informed decisions. So our goal at First Street was really to connect climate risk economic risk and figure out a way to make this data available so people can use this information and make actionable decisions.

Yeah, that's great. I mean, you think about people when they buy a home, they think about their insurance policy like they think about their mortgage or they think about their utility bills. They don't expect it to move that much wherever it starts. Should is how they kind of bake it into their analysis when they when they actually are you know, going through the costing of their lives.

Right.

But as we've seen, you can these things are especially for the insurance industry, they're they're one year head, you know, they only are really insuring you year by year. So that part of the equation is very different from more it's like having a mortgage that moves, you know, with with interest rates, it's variable, and that variability, I mean, it's it's always good if it goes down, but when it goes up, it's a problem. And it is a real problem today. There's been stories lately about people, you know, actually signing on the dotted line before checking out their insurance policy options and finding that no one's going to ensure them.

Right.

That's if you're in Florida or some other places. So it's a really high risk factor and I want to kind of break up if I can, the kind of risks that you're modeling. The fire, the flood, and the wind right or you know, the kind of hurricane risks. You know, if you think about them first of all, are these sort of static? I mean, are you seeing people from just one part of the country kind of using your research and your resources to make these decisions, or is it traveling you know, which Unfortunately we're seeing in across all of these things. I mean, the flooding that you mentioned, the really big flooding story is related to rivers. It's not related to the ocean. You know, if you think about the flooding that's going on, fluvial flooding, which is river flooding. So can you talk a little bit about each of those fire flood and let's just call it wind or hurricane and who is that audience and how has that changed?

Sure? I think those those are the hazards that cause physical damage to property. So we also model air quality and smoke from wildfires and extreme heat. Both of those are predominantly nuisance factors more than they are property level physical risk indicators. All of the five models that we have right now, we do see shifts both from a historic perspective to what we're seeing today and out into the future. When we start to couple those with the inputs from the global climate models, and you know, if we started with the most prevalent of all of thes flood and really what we had for many many years was the FEMO zones. FEMA zones were our one in one hundred year flood zones. Unfortunately, FEMA zones were built for the purpose of informing emergency management in communities and floodplain managers. They were never built for property level flood risk analytics. So we in the absence of actually having any of those tools, we use them for property level flood risk analytics. And the methodology is really good on the coast. It's really good in main river channels, but it's not very good in small waterways, small creeks, streams, rivers, and it doesn't incorporate precipitation directly into the model. So when you think about incorporating heavy precipitation events, the types of events that we're seeing more and more frequently and more with more intensity as the climate changes, that's the type of climate risk that we're not capturing with the FEMA zone. So as we as we built out our model, we found that we're actually finding two point two times as many properties across the country have one one hundred year of flood risk than what you would see if you just looked at the FEMA one hundred year Special Flood Hazard Area. And so that that's simply from incorporating heavy rainfall and then the type of flooding in rivers and streams and tributaries that we end up seeing from those heavy rainfall events. So the big, the big events in Vermont, in eastern Kentucky, in West Virginia that we've seen in the past couple of years, those are scipitation in small waterway flooding events and those properties generally aren't in flood zones. Yea. So having you know, having that kind of information and just capturing sure.

I mean, severe convective storms are the number, are the largest last year, we're the largest source of damage. So these big what we referred to as kiddy storms, they're not big cat storms, catastrac of events. These are kind of below five billion dollars. They and they just happen and happen and happen and happen, and they add up to a big number, and they happen everywhere.

You know.

The geography of them is not like a giant hurricane where you know there's a pathway to it and you can kind of figure that out, you know, you kind of work out what kind of exposures you have. But if you're in Kansas, you don't.

Care, right.

But that's not true in the case of these storms, which are just i mean, one after another after another. And as you as you mentioned the the understanding of those risks, especially around rivers, is just very very low because the the data that is available is kind of expensive, to be fair, you know, like it's people actually doing it one it's on a one on one basis. They're like, how is my factory going to be affected?

Right?

Not can you please tell me how everybody around me is going to be affected and my factory? Right. So that's sort of the challenge and the reason why your data is super helpful. Can we shift gears a little and go to the fireside, because the fireside is certainly becoming I mean, the insurers are telling the story better than anyone. We don't want it, right, I mean, we don't want it at the price that currently available. But can you kind of talk about what's happening?

And it's interesting because wildfire doesn't have the same federal backstop on flood insurance either right that flood has so wildfire is a homeowner's insurance policy. There's generally some in really high risk areas as a ride are oftentimes attached to it. But insurance companies are starting to respond to the increasing fire wildfire risk, especially in western states and and oftentimes when we think about wildfire, we're thinking about it as a as a Western problem. You know, it's not something that happens on the East coast. But we're increasingly we're seeing wildfires in the southeast, where we see wildfires in South Georgiana and the Panhandle of Florida every year. We see wildfires in Central Jersey and the Pine and the Pine barrens annually. Now we're seeing a tremendous amount of wildfires in Canada, and the smoke in the in the Northeast and the Midwest is something that we were picking up from that. As you continue to project that out into the future, our models show that those areas are only going to continue to grow in terms of wildfire risk. So it's going to move from being something we think of as just a Western problem to something that is more of a national problem.

Yeah, I mean, we certainly felt it would last year's storms or sorry fires in Canada. I mean, the statistics that I've seen recently from Stamford has some pretty interesting research on this front about the effects of wildfire on health, you know, on the on basically the air pollution. And we've made incredible strides in air pollution over the last thirty years. I mean, we're here in New York City. You couldn't see across the street in the seventies. It was gross, you know, but we've it's very clean and clear now, and we're starting to see that trend reverse because of wildfires. We are seeing you've had this beautiful line going down every year pretty much, and that's starting to reverse now because fires are anytime you burn something that's not very sort of cleaner pure, and wood is one of the worst defenders. It's very young material, It has a lot of contaminants in it, a lot of pollutants in it, and that affects everybody. But you know, children and older people are who we worry about them first, right with that stuff.

Yeah, And one of the points that you're making is, you know, we as as sort of a bipartisan effort we cleaned. The Clean Air Act is one of the best things that we've done in the past few decades. And there was a clear negative impact on or a clear positive impact negative trend on emissions, and we are seeing now climate reverse that trend. We were able to, in a regulatory fashion remove emissions from factories and from automobiles and from other anthropogenic sources. We're having a much more difficult time thinking about how to regulate emissions out of climate. And I think that's the problem that we're going to start facing moving forward.

Yeah, I think we're I think we're already having those conversations. And know in Congress they're talking about limiting the amount of intentional fires you can produce because it's going to create obviously, it's going to create pollution when it does it. But you're trying to solve a bigger problem, which is you burn five percent so that eighty percent doesn't burn. You know, So these are problems. So okay, let's final let's move to wind. I mean, I think the hurricane risks are something that you know, many people are moving to Florida. I've just moved away from Florida, but everybody else is moving there. And there is certainly a concern amongst people there that the intensities are the water is getting warmer. This is supposed to be a very bad year from that perspective. How are you seeing that play out in your models and in your kind of audience. I'm more interested in the users, you know what I'm saying.

I think the wind risk is really interesting there. There again are very clear geographic and statistical signals in the data as you start to model wind risk. The science is a little bit mixed on the on the frequency of tropical cyclones, and we're not you know, we're not. It's not clear that we're getting more tropical cyclones. What is clear is that when we do have tropical cyclones are stronger. And when we get these stronger tropical cyclones, it means that they're moving slower, they're they're bigger in terms of their their their size, their spatial size, and they're sitting over areas for a longer period of time. So you start to have correlated risk and that in that case because you're dumping a lot of precipitation with these events, but there's also just this tremendous amount of wind that sits over an area for a longer and longer period of time, and probably the most interesting climate signal that we're seeing is that those tropical cyclones are moving further north. So we're seeing latitudinally north movement of these tropical cyclones are as they're being created because they are stronger and they're able to withstand the westerly weather patterns. They're able to withstand the colder water in the North Atlantic because in fact, it's warmer water at this point and provides fuel for the hurricane. So our models are actually seeing that tropical cyclone winds are moving inland and as you can actually track it historically over time. But if you start to take the global climate models and integrate those into the process and perspectively create these wind models with the climate conditions, in thirty years, we're seeing areas in northern Alabama, northern Mississippi, Tennessee regularly become risky at risk areas for Cat one hurricane. So that you're at that point you're talking about a tropical cyclone Category one hurricane moving all the way through the states of you know, these coastal states of Alabama and Mississippi to get to Tennessee. But we're also seeing the patterns move further up the Atlantic sea boards. So we're seeing the mid Atlantic states and even southern New England states start to have risk of potential Cat one hurricanes. And you start to harken back to Superstorm Sandy, and you start to think to yourself, well, that'll be something that could potentially be a more likely event in the climate in thirty years than what we see today.

Yeah, And I mean, obviously the real risk of that is if you think look think about Florida after Hurricane Andrew. They had very strict building laws about it's got to be Cat five proof, right, and so there's a whole stock of buildings that you're talking about in the middle of Alabama or you know in Tennessee that that never consideration, right. So this is these are much more vulnerable homes, and we were in some ways we're improving our odds by having better building codes because these buildings can withstand it, not maybe not supposed to be standing in front of it, but they are at least able to handle it. Whereas as you move further inland, these codes were i mean ignored probably if there were, it was a suggestion it wasn't right, you know, it wasn't required as it was in the states that have seen it and experienced it and don't want it to happen again.

Yeah, I think from the user perspective, as you mentioned earlier, I think there is an integrate. It's sort of an intersection almost of places we developed for many, many years, for decades that we didn't seem risky at the time, and now with climate change, they become more and more risky, and we were kind of at this point where it's coming to a head and places that were where we built and we've developed, we have infrastructure, we have populations are now seeing more severe and more frequent climate climate disasters than they did in the past.

Let's do let's change gears a little bit and talk about sort of the practical use of what your data is and the kind of clients that come to you and are looking at your data. You mentioned redfin and companies like that. Obviously there's a lot of interest in better understanding these risks. I would argue they're understanding. They're more interested in the next five years in many ways than they are in the next twenty five thirty years. But you kind of walk through the kind of use cases that companies have been asking you to, you know, kind of engage with them on Yeah.

We had we we we've actually had a lot of different use cases for the data. One way in which we've already talked about is the individual consumer on the on the real estate portal sites like redfin, like like realtor, where people are going on and going onto the sites and they just want to understand their risk as they make the decision about buying a home. We've also had a lot of folks from the finance industry you have reached out about risk analytics for their own portfolio holdings and uh things like like reets are interested in the risk that they hold in their portfolios. So we've seen that both in the residential and the commercial space. To your point, oftentimes they're interested in the shorter duration of the risk. They may want seven year risks, especially if it's commercial properties, they may be interested in even shorter risk attached to that. But then the other users that are really interested in our data are the government, federal government in particular, We've been working with a lot of groups out of the out of the federal government and in terms of portfolio risk analysis in terms of understanding some of the socioeconomic implications of climate risk and how that impacts a larger macroeconomic community, impacts potentially making its way down to the property value of specific buildings and properties. But individuals when they when they when they when they're in interested in working with the data. I think one thing that really bonds them all together is the fact that they're interested in having high resolution data that's peer reviewed, that's been been scientifically created in a in a rigorous manner. And and that's what we do with our data. I mean, we're building all of our models at are really high level property resolution, and then we're peer reviewing and publishing all of our methodologies so people can see exactly what we're doing to produce to produce those data in those models.

That's great, I would I would imagine that local governments would also be interested in your work because for them, for for a government, like they have a huge portfolio, things can go wrong in one place or another. It's not great, but it's it's part of a whole. Whereas if you're thinking about local governments, if you know, if they get run down, run over by a storm, it's a big, big deal for them. It's a it's a it's They're all they think about for the next five years when they try to pick up the pieces. Right, So I would imagine in time that will be kind of where some of your activity goes. And you know, I municipal bond market, for example, cares about this stuff too, Right. They want to know how much risk not getting paid back is probably less a concern than what am I getting paid the fair amount for taking on this risk? Right, there's what interest rate is the right risk A right amount given the given the nature of the investment that I'm making, right, And so in different parts of the country, that answer can't be the same. You know, like even if you have similar tax bases and things like that, these kind of disturbances have of a big impact on people and some people, you know, if you look what happened in Mississippi or in Louisiana during Katrina, lots of people left, you know, like that's a real that's a problem that a local government doesn't know how to deal with. There's no answer to that, right, just people leaving. So it's a big it's a big deal. So I just was thanks for that, you know, I think it's important that people understand this is this really has this data, and the amount of money that we're talking about that's changing hands in this economy is just a very big number, you know, And we do Bloomberg Intelligence and me in particular, spend a lot of time on understanding this is sort of a wealth transfer. There is a huge amount of money changing hands, north of a half a trillion dollars a year that's going from you know, different sectors of the economy to other sectors of the economy, right, And there are winners and losers, and there's headwinds and tailwinds. But it's very hard at the retail level the individual for the homes and things like that to not be seen as being on the tailwind side.

Right.

There are companies that are going to you know, install more drainage systems and take away the garbage and stuff like that. And I just want to kind of bring it all back down. There's obviously a lot of actors in this space, a lot of sectors that are affected. The insurance sector is the one who's right in the front lines, right. I mean, there's no lying to the insurance sector about climate change. Other they just they pay the bills when they get it wrong. So they are you know, that's they are making models that they're trying to determine what is a fair price for taking on the risk of these kinds of events. And I just wanted to know from your understand from your perspective, how you think they have been evolving over time, and what do you think they like in the next five years, What do you think is realistic for them in terms of understanding these these risks as a you know, kind of expense multiplier for them.

Yeah, And the insurance industry is interesting because you know, the regulated state by state, and they underwrite with a with a huge well, depending on the state, a lot of regulatory responsibility and and restrictions on the way in which they are allowed to raise rates, whether it be due to climate or or something else. So what we're seeing in places like California are the regulatory restriction are too restrict or too restricting for them to actually increase the rates so that they're actually sound and they're able to actually do business in the state. So people are pulling out in high risk wildfire areas. So to your point, the insurance industry is responding to this on an annual basis. There is no thirty year climate projections for them. They want to know annually is what's the risk associated with the premiums that we're writing this year, the policies that we have outstanding, and how can we price those in a way that allows us to do business in an actuarily sound sound way. So we are seeing recently spikes in the insurance industry and it's carrying its way all the way through the economy. We're seeing it in from inflation to construction and the insurance company payouts having to cover the higher construction costs. We're seeing it from the reinsurance companies and then passing it along to the insurance companies. So insurance is really the frontline of climate making its way into a lot of the different sectors of society that we think of as being sort of economically driven and being sort of asset driven. And we're seeing that right now in the residential real estate market and even the commercial real estate market in the near future. I mean, the California right now is really pushing for a lessening of restrictions around some of the regulatory policies in the state. You know, what does that mean for your consumers. It means that most people are probably going to see increases in and insurance costs. And you're seeing the same thing in Florida out of the Citizens Insurance Agency. So we're seeing this in a lot of different places where people are starting to understand we have to price risk properly. At some point, having risk price properly is going to make sense for both homeowners, home buyers home sellers. There's a transition period though, where to a point that was made really early in this discussion, people go to buy a home, they sign a thirty year contract, they expect their insurance to be a certain number for thirty years, and all of a sudden it you know, it's two, three, four times what they expected it to be, and that just turns the household economics on its head. So being able to actually price risk is important. But over the next few years where there we're going to end up with issues where the people that already own homes, already have mortgages in place, are to feel some of the issues associated with those rising rising prices.

Yeah, I think the real thing that people don't appreciate that inflation, Especially when we talk about inflation we've seen an incredible amount of inflation in the economy over the last several years. That that inflation is sort of the transition of that inflation from high inflation low inflation can be very quick. Whereas what's happening for the insurance industry is they've been beaten up for five six years in a row. Right, So this is not a question of tweaking, you know, like they are recovering, they've made. The better way to think about it is, if you bought insurance from these companies, you paid too low a price, you got a good you got a good rate. You know, you may not have felt like you got a good rate, But if they lost money, you got a good rate. That's all. That's all the math you need to know, right, So, and in going forward, it takes longer for that rate adjustment to happen, right for them too, because as you mentioned regulatory California, it's like seven percent as much as you can raise it. And if you have twice as much damage from wildfire from one year to the next and you're only raising rates by seven percent, you're probably gonna lose money, is what it comes down to, right Because that's a very low number. So the idea that the adjustment in this part of the economy can happen as quickly as some other inflation problems that we're seeing, you know, things like gas prices they go up and they go right back down again, or what have you. It's just going to take a long lot longer to play out. So that's just you know, I think it's harder to get that through for people to understand because they think, if it's all inflation, is all kind of the same. But this is going to take a little longer to play out, is my is sort of what I would caution people about. Well, I think we are coming on towards the end of our little chat, which has been great. Is anything you want to chat about from your end from in terms of what you're seeing or things that you you've you've heard about today.

Well, I think the most important thing to us, even as an organization, I'll take a second just to to mention it is that we're building. You know, we believe that the you know, connecting climate risk to economic risk is important. It's not happening in a way that's accessible, in a way that that that people can digest. So you know, we build tools that allow people to do that, and we are taking advantage of the fact that we have you know, thirty some on scientists now on our on our staff and we partner with another one hundred or so in terms of building building our models to build you know, the models that that that all are sort of top science grade models. They're rigorous, they're peer reviewed, and they give people the ability to understand their risk all that data we make available on that risk factor dot com. Our goal really is that we want people to be able to access the data, to be able to make informed decisions, and to be able to start taking climate into account when they when they think about making decisions about where they're going to live or what homes to buy and sort of protecting themselves in their communities.

Yeah, it's great. I mean people are making a decision when they do make these purchases, they just don't know it. That's the problem, right They you want the it's the things you know, you'd rather have those out in front so that you can prepare for them because life's not so straightforward, right and things happen. So I would like to thank you very much for coming on. Really has been fun. I hope hope people have had enjoyed listening to this. This is pretty important information and I'd like to thank you again for your time.

I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me on. Let me talk about the work we do a first Street that's great. You can find more information on climate data like our Climate Damages tracker by going to BI Carbon on the Bloomberg terminal.

If you have an ESG quandary or burning question you would like to ask BI expert analysts, send us an email at ESG Currents at bloomberg dot net

In 1 playlist(s)

  1. ESG Currents

    79 clip(s)

ESG Currents

ESG has become established as a key business theme as companies and investors seek to navigate the c 
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 79 clip(s)