Rosemary Addis gives us the lowdown on everything impact investing in Australia as well as round the world. She’s been a guest on the show before (listen to ep#38 here), and it’s great to have her back to talk about everything from Australia’s new government, the growing pains facing ESG investing, how impact will integrate with the global disclosure rules, as well as her new venture, Mondiale Impact.
Rosemary has been pivotal to the development of sustainable finance, she co-founded Impact Investing Australia, she’s our representative on the G8’s Social Impact Taskforce, and she has her ear to the ground on the trends and innovations in this rapidly developing world of impact finance.
Listen on Soundcloud
On this episode…
We discussed the areas of change we’re likely to see form Australia’s new government.
“the vibe in Canberra has changed”
The potential for a ‘wellbeing budget’ in Australia, and the lessons that can be learned from impact measurement and management.
We also dug into volatility in markets, but also in critiques of ESG investing, and how this is a positive step in the evolution of a major change within finance.
My key takeaway from Rosemary Addis this week…
“If we just put the metrics in at the beginning, and expect to get to the moon, there is no way we will reach our destination. So we have to be thinking about this as a design and management, governance process, as well as metrics and reporting.”
Good Future’s Good Books
By Anna Konnikova
“I read an interesting book recently recommended by my husband called The Biggest Bluff by Maria Konnikova. And she is a behavioral psychologist who took a year off to learn how to play poker, and she’s written about what she learned in the process, and how that’s been affected. The way that she works in her relationships as well as becoming very good at poker along the way.”
Please note, all book recommendations are directed to Booktopia, a local, Australian online bookseller, and if you choose to buy through that link you also support the podcast as we may receive an affiliate reward. Thanks in advance!
Links
Follow us…
Sign-up for notifications of new episodes HERE
The Good Future Instagram is pretty great, check it out over HERE
My Twitter is over HERE
And you can get me on LinkedIn HERE
Disclaimer
The information on this website, and linked podcast episodes, is for information and entertainment purposed only, it is not intended as financial advice.
If there has been mention of financial products it should not be taken as a recommendation, and it shouldn’t be relied upon. It does not take into account the investment objectives, financial situation, or the particular needs of any potential investor.
You should consider obtaining independent advice before making any financial decisionsIf you’re in Australia you can visit moneysmart.gov.au for more details.
Full Transcript
Note: this was an automated production by Otter.ai, so some errors may remain
John Treadgold
Rosemary Addis. Thank you for coming back to the good future podcast. Great to have you here.
Rosemary Addis
Thanks, John. And I appreciate you inviting me.
John Treadgold
We’ve survived COVID. We have a new government, you have a new business and a new appointment at the uni of Melbourne. So we’ve got lots to talk about.
Rosemary Addis
We do have lots to talk about. There’s been a lot of change, and it’s moving fast.
John Treadgold
That’s right. Let’s try and keep up with it. This new government, it’s exciting. I think, lots of opportunity. We’ve seen a big shake up in Parliament, it we haven’t seen a shake up like that for a decade. And so far we’ve seen a Labour Government, push a climate bill through, then negotiated that and got it passed a big step. But what are the issues that you hope to see this government dealing with?
Rosemary Addis
Well, it certainly is a very different feel. I was on a call just before where people were saying the vibe in Canberra has shifted dramatically. And we’re seeing, as you said, early action in areas such as climate, and that’s obviously welcomed by this new composition of the parliament, although there’s still a number of issues to work through.
We’re also seeing a kind of dialogue connected with economic institutions, and with the way we might think about the budget into the future that could be really transformational if it’s done well. And that includes the talk around Wellbeing featuring in the budget, which is the process, we would come to talking about how the way we set the national budget has an impact on people on the planet. That’s a significant development and something that we will obviously need to see how it’s implemented. And what that looks like in practice.
We also are seeing connected with that discussion about how communities can be engaged, how we start to build some of the infrastructure that’s, that’s required. We’re looking at the institutional settings, including for things like the Reserve Bank, and where that’s important beyond the settings of the economic policies. When I think about good governance, it’s about how to decisions get made, and whose voices get heard in that process. And so the fact that it’s on the table, have we got the right voices around the table? Should we be listening to a broader range of stakeholders and experts in their views around how we set that, is an important discussion for us to have wherever it lands.
And the fact that we’re now having some of these national debates is also an important development. So, I think it’s a work in progress is what I would say about the new government, there are reasons for optimism, and there’s quite a bit still to still to land.
John Treadgold
On that topic of a well-being budget. Such an interesting concept. We, I think we understand the concept well, having come from the concept of impact investing, but even in impact investing, there are challenges with measuring that high level wellbeing factor, it’s attractive because it allows us to compare different impact inputs but even if the niche of impact investment struggles with measurement, how do you think we can translate that to a national federal budget.
Rosemary Addis
So I hope that these are ways of broadening the conversation around how we not just measure but value and manage for getting better outcomes. And like in impact investing or any of the other areas where people are trying now to better integrate the social and environmental factors. It’s important to be clear about some of the fundamentals and not try and boil the ocean.
So what I think be important, first of all, is that we get started. You know, at the moment, we don’t measure anything at all. And I’ve seen in the past the debate go quickly to, you know, are we measuring not only whether these things are making progress, but whether they work better than anything else in the known universe.
Starting somewhere that has a sound foundation and a positive direction that actually links how we spend money to outcomes for people and their well being is something we should embrace and understand how we’re going to need to learn how to do that well.
Also focusing on some of the fundamentals around that, at an aggregate level, it’s not a super straightforward thing, but it can be broken down by different types of initiatives.
Also, it’s important that we see it not just as a measurement task, but as a management task, if we’re actually setting goals, which is what the budget is all about. I mean, budgets aren’t results, budgets are the frame we set about what we plan to do. And in that context, including what we plan to do around the outcomes we expect to achieve, or the things we expect it to achieve for people on the planet, is a really important step. Then we need to manage for that, including checking in and measuring to see whether we’re making progress.
And you know, what’s positive is, my view is we do have the tools, there’s a lot of focus on specific metrics, and you might want to come back to that in our discussion. But we actually do have the tools that can be applied in robust ways in how we think about social value and how we think about the fundamentals of impact management at a foundational level, what we haven’t yet done as a field is assimilate that, and the adoption is still a work in progress.
I’m confident though, that the tools that are there will be hugely helpful in this process, as well, the experience of other countries like New Zealand, and others who’ve gone down this path, and we can learn from, from both their successes and the things where they’ve had to, you know, have to make improvements. And so we should be able to springboard from that experience.
John Treadgold
That’s right, we have the lesson of New Zealand, which is valuable, and digging into impact measurement and management, such a pivotal moment, right now, I think, a confluence of forces coming together with a lot of harmonisation of these elements. And when we look at that at a federal budgetary model, and you’ve discussed, measurement is great for measuring performance, but management is what’s key. What are the outcomes we’re seeking for? And I think I see that a lot. And that’s probably what drove me into the sector has been frustrated at this binary view of all we care about is GDP growth. And that’s it. And there are so many negative externalities that flow from that. And so widening that aperture is really important. What are some of the challenges that we need step over to be able to have this operating? What are some of the first steps that you’d hoped, some of those first metrics that we start measuring, and managing towards?
Rosemary Addis
First up, I love the analogy is widening the aperture, because it is key, and we see in a whole range of domains, government and elsewhere, where there’s appropriate focus on risk and value for public money, or how we’re developing programmes, business models, etc. These beautiful risk matrices, rarely do you see them that actually include the risk that we won’t achieve any benefit for the people who we’re setting out to work with or for, whether that’s customers or, you know, or people in communities.
So having the starting point that putting that in frame to continue your analogy is a good thing to do. And that we will have to build our muscle. There are a couple of different elements, some ways around the tools and the way that we measure, but some are also around capability. And I just talked about building muscle, we’d have to build our muscle in doing this, you know, we don’t get good at doing things until we’ve actually had the experience apply them, built practice.
There’s been pockets of practice in government around some of these things, some careful work done on outcomes, some work done in relation to evaluation, but in terms of how we see it as a much more ongoing management task as well as where there’s appropriate cases to be creating evidence base and doing more scientific evaluations, is something that we haven’t done a lot of as a as a systematic exercise.
That said, there’s a capability building and learning by doing exercise. I am really confident that some of the tools that are around are hugely helpful. Just take for example, The five dimensions of impact that came through the impact management project, the who the what, how much are we trying to do? What contribution do we want that to make? And what is the impact risk look like?
If we started applying those consistently in how we talked about what governments are trying to do, it would take us to a very different conversation. If we started then taking that from budgets and programmes designed into the way that we engage in procurement and partnering. And we ask the questions in those terms and expected people to answer and then everybody tracked to those dimensions, we would all take a huge step forward, even though on its own, it wouldn’t necessarily cover everything we want to cover.
So I think, a staged approach where we have some key things in place, there’s a lot of focus in the discussion, not just in the public sector, but even perhaps more in the private sector at the moment around, you know, what are the key metrics, really important discussion. However, it can also be a distraction, it’s kind of necessary but not sufficient. And to channel Fabian Micheaux has done such magnificent work on the SDG impact project and the standards there, which are also a valuable resource in these processes.
It’s like if we, if we take the moonshots here towards a society where our goal is to improve wellbeing for everybody, and in the context of sustainability, then the metrics are important, they’re important to set our course, they’re important to course correct. But if we just put the metrics in at the beginning, and expect to get to the moon, there is no way we will reach our destination. So we have to be thinking about this as a design and management, governance process, as well as metrics and reporting.
John Treadgold
And the last government, they received the final report from the social impact Task Force, they sat on it, they didn’t release it, do you hold out more hope for this government, and perhaps you’ve got your ear to the ground, and you have some intel for us. Any views on progress with that, or even just perhaps, which ministry might manage something like that issue.
Rosemary Addis
So I don’t have any until I can share, but I do feel optimistic that the that the foundations, the principles, the kind of approach that is embedded in that report, and the work of the task force, is something that may resonate with this government. There, you know, the interim report, which we’ve all seen canvas, some really important developments, that would make a huge contribution to taking them forward.
There’s was a strong alignment between the interim report and the things that impact investing Australia has recommended and people who are interested can go back to the budget submissions of Impact Investing Australia to really get a sense of some of the policy arguments and implementation for that.
And so I think there is good receptivity. And the question for this government in such a crowded agenda with the ambitions that they have, and inheriting the budget deficits that come through the pandemic and other things is, can we now paint a picture for them that this is an essential tool, thinking about impact, and the potential for impact investment is an essential tool for taking us forward.
It’s more than a niche or a particular area of activity. The types of market building initiatives and institutions that have been recommended through the work of the task force and others, are actually critical to creating an ecosystem that can do more of what’s needed, including leveraging and supporting the government in key areas where that is going to be critical to achieving their goals, and help them to see it in that broader context than a series of initiatives.
If we can do that, and if we can also bring the interested stakeholders together to reinforce this and encourage government beyond an ask, you know, how can we help you do this? How can we help be part of the solution.
Including refreshing things for government because what happens when we have a change of government in Australia is a lot of the work that’s been done inside of government gets archived. There’s a range of reasons we don’t need to debate the pros and cons. So even the work that for example, My change lead when our social innovation strategist from 2010 to 2013, wouldn’t now be available for this government to draw upon.
So how can we help them by refreshing them by giving them confidence that this works been done, helping them access that kind of thinking and work, including the important work of the task force and, and the stakeholder engagement that was achieved through that process, and embolden them that these initiatives are part of the solution. And well beyond, you know, we’ll make a contribution, well be on the spending in terms of the opportunities they open up that are very aligned with their goals.
John Treadgold
lots of opportunities to engage and open up those lines of communication. I’m sure they’re very busy at the moment. But yeah, look, looks to be optimistic about.
Zeroing in a little bit more now on the current state of the market, tumultuous in terms of the stock market, and lot’s happening with that questions of inflation, impact investment, as we’ve said, I think that there’s really great progress in this confluence of forces and harmonisation of frameworks. But what’s sucking up a lot of the oxygen is ESG. And this sort of criticism from all sides. And I think, from my perspective, it’s a recognition that it’s pushing into the mainstream, and people are starting to question it, which is good. But what’s your view? Have you weighed in on any of the debate? Do you think much of it is, is genuine?
Rosemary Addis
So first of all, to orient around the market, and building a bridge to our conversation around government and policy, if we want governments to act, we need to show the rest of the market is there. And as you said, there’s a lot of developments happening, they’re happening fast. And some of its choppy borders, there’s a few things going on there. Some of it is well intentioned, and, and directed in really positive ways. Some of it is well intentioned and constrained still by some of the existing frameworks in terms of how people think about doing things.
And so, for example, the focus on enterprise value creation, as a kind of Cornerstone or a frame within which we look at a company’s social and environmental factors and risks. That’s actually a limiting factor, because it still puts it within the context of the company, and its performance rather than a company’s impacts on the broader world. That’s something we need to continue to build the whole picture, not just one part of the picture, particularly if we want to meet our sustainability goals. And some of it is headwinds, as you say, you know, challenge to something that is now gaining traction. My view is this is going to happen, but it will run into some significant headwinds.
The point around ESG is an interesting one, from the perspective that the debate that is going on at the moment, has some validity to it. There are some real limitations to the way that ESG has been practised, and what has been called ESG. And to give an example of that, you know, there was a whole range of funds in Europe that were called ESG, or sustainable funds, after the European Union regulated the disclosures around what they considered sustainable through the sustainable finance disclosures, regulation. Morningstar has now taken that criteria and, and cut 1200 of those funds out of the list of what qualified.
So there is some legitimacy to points in the critique of ESG in terms of how its operating now. There’s also some legitimacy to the critique around the orientation of a lot of ESG in terms of concentrating on the impacts for the financial results of the enterprise, rather than looking on the enterprise’s impacts on the broader world. And so these are important conversations.
What I think is also important is that we don’t need to resolve all of them to be able to move forward. If our goal, particularly through the impact lens is to orient people to making a positive contribution to the outcomes for people and planet to sustainable development, then there are pathways to do that that don’t require us to be preoccupied about those limitations of ESG.
The other important dimension to the debates that are going on at the moment. Well, there’s two other important dimensions, probably many more, but two that I’ll highlight for today’s purposes.
One is that there’s a tendency for the E, S and G to be seen as kind of separate columns, if you like, or buckets of activity. And that can obscure the interrelationship and the interdependencies between these issues, which are also really important. And certainly there are some approaches that focus in hard on the E or the climate factors and say, well, we’ll just bring everything else on after that. The world doesn’t work that way. We need to achieve a just transition. Climate impacts have profound consequences for people, particularly people who are already marginalised or living in vulnerable communities or in parts of the world that are particularly susceptible to natural disasters and things so and the way we can approach some of the climate metrics, you can’t just retrofit social things into. So we have to learn to take a more sophisticated approach, we’re capable of doing that as human beings, we do difficult all the time. So that is really important.
The other thing is that notwithstanding the legitimacy of some of the critiques and the debates that are playing out, and the combination of vested interests and things still to be worked through in terms of how we do it well, and the great need in world.
What we are seeing at the moment, playing out at record speed, is the biggest transformation in how we think about standards for reporting and performance that we have seen since the Second World War. That is profound, and it’s indicative of the direction of travel. And one of the things I do reinforce with people is it’s important that we keep our eye on that direction of travel in the sense of the world is moving towards greater focus on sustainability, Rather than get too hung up on this stage, and some of the debate still to play out and trying to be precise, only to find out we were precisely wrong or precise in all the wrong areas.
And so, you know, the debate, and the critiques that are going on, which are important and have a range of factors driving them, in my view, secondary to the fact that we are seeing this massive transformation happening in our markets. And for those of us who are focused on saying better outcomes and more positive impact. That’s where we need to keep our compass oriented.
John Treadgold
Yeah that you’ve covered so much there. Lots to unpack. And I think it’s so interesting this, when we say ESG, is facing criticism, it’s from both sides, right. And you were talking about the criticism from, from industry from from professionals who are there deep in the trenches working on it, saying, it’s good, but we want it to do better. But then from the other side, there’s a whole nother group that are saying, It’s pointless, it’s a con, it’s word capitalism and has no place in finance. So that’s a real challenge to be to be attacked from both sides, I guess. And to me, that comes back to the enduring challenge of a definition. Right. And from a communications perspective, it’s so difficult.
Rosemary Addis
Yeah, maybe although I used to say to the team at impact investing in Australia, we’re getting attacked in well, you know, critiques in equal measure from both sides, we’re probably in about the right place. You know, there is something to that as a rule of thumb metric. What we do need to be careful of is the debate becoming politicised and this is playing out particularly in the US.
The waters are very choppy the way the political system interacts between local, state and federal, some huge wins like the bill that went through this past week, at the same time, state governors moving to regulate against people utilising ESG, or sustainability measures at all. The politicisation of this is not only unhelpful, it is really manifestly destructive in a world where we know that the consequences of climate change are, as the IPCC said, cascading compounding and aggregating. And, you know, we can’t regulate that away.
John Treadgold
There’s a irony there. There’s a lot of the criticism of ESG is that, oh it’s marketing speak, and it won’t actually save the world, or when in fact, it was never intended to save the world. It’s, you know, it’s essentially data to risk metric, right. And I think most Let’s have that discussion. Unfortunately, I wish it would then lead to honour. That’s what impact investing does, right? That that’s outcomes based and there is this more rigorous model, but unfortunately, it doesn’t happen. And so trying to then lead that concept towards what you mentioned and the developments with the ISSB. And that’s a huge shift in accounting and really this integration of sustainability and finances is coming. And while the ISSB elements, disclosure rules are all about how companies report ESG data, how do you see impact investing being impacted by these new rules?
Rosemary Addis
So picking up on your point, in some ways, ESG is being criticised for not doing something it was never designed to do. That’s absolutely true. That there is often and I think this particular series of events and debates is no different a kind of conflation between, or a tension between what’s the language people are using such that you can meet them where they are, and where do we need to go. And, you know, I think that is hugely influential in the way that ESG has been picked up with in the ISSB.
I agree with you that the answer to that is that really, we need to focus on impact in a holistic sense, and look at the overall impact of the company or investments positive and negative. To be more intentional about the impacts, we’re planning to have to manage that and be accountable for it and govern for it. That’s certainly the conversation that we need to have.
Now, there are people who are putting a lot of effort into influencing through these formal processes, there’s certainly a role for that. There’s also a role for continuing to create the space as people like Fab Micheaux are having through her work with SDG impact, to say for those who really want to focus on how it is we’re going to continue to contribute positively towards sustainable development, meeting the SDGs a world where we’ve, you know, adapting to and mitigating climate risks. This is the roadmap for you. And to encourage more people onto that path. It’s a necessary, I guess, or just a pragmatic reality that as new rules come that affect the compliance obligations of companies that that’s where some of their attention will focus. And some of the energy will go, there’s still lots of room for people to say, we know we’re gonna make need to make compliance obligations. The real opportunity set for us and to cut through this is to see how we can become impact leaders. That’s the kind of conversation that I’m keen to see is still trying to drive home.
John Treadgold
In this field, you have a lot of roles. But an exciting one is your new enterprise, Mondiale. Is that the right pronunciation?
Rosemary Addis
Well, it depends if you talk to my French speaking partners globally, or my Italian speaking partners globally. My French speaking partners and say my impact, my Italian speaking partners tell us that we need to get the pronunciation on the e, Mondiale. As long as people understand we make global impact, then I’m agnostic.
John Treadgold
Mondiale impact, I like it. And tell us what’s it all about? What problems are you solving for your clients?
Rosemary Addis
So Mondiale, it’s exciting because it’s a group of really experienced practitioners who’ve all been pioneers in building the field of impact investment in and with broad and varied experience across continents, across across markets and settings, coming together to activate the board table and help leaders cut through on the governance conversation of what we’re calling 21st century governance. So we to the point that I was making, just previously about people saying the real opportunities are in becoming impact leaders. Those organisations serious about impact where we too, will do most of our work, engaging with the chairs, the CEOs, the board table to activate them for what the governance role looks like, if you’re really stewarding your organisation for that kind of transformation to be oriented around impact and to see the opposite.
John Treadgold
So that’s talking to the boards of companies, more than more than just investors.
Rosemary Addis
So we looking across the ecosystem, so companies, investment houses, sometimes it might be a blend. So for example, investment managers are increasingly focused on how do they bring the boards of their portfolio companies with them, particularly where they’re making, you know, setting goals and trying to manage towards an aggregated set of impacts by investing in these companies.
Also, large, multilateral organisations, where decision-makers are really trying to orient around this. And in occasional cases, some of the key intermediaries who are influencing the practice, because if their boards and become oriented around how they’re doing that they can have a big influence across the ecosystem as well. So we’ve been very strategic and targeted about who we work with, because we have a fantastic depth of, my partner’s really are a brains-trust of people who have been doing this a long time. And they all have other commitments. So we can need to be selective and want to spend most of our resource working with those organisations who really want and it’s
John Treadgold
It’s interesting, this word governance, I think it’s obviously part of ESG. And, and as you mentioned before, some groups just hold on to that environmental piece. And it’s kind of just climate change. And again, it’s a little bit blanket, but from the impact perspective, its governance, that’s the key, and IT governance sort of overrides it all, because that’s the decision making organ. That’s where the power really lies. Is that Is that why you’ve taken hold of that word and that element of an organisation?
Rosemary Addis
We think it’s the next frontier, because it’s where decisions get made. It’s the stewardship of how organisations kind of go forward. It’s the board that’s responsible for setting the strategy for determining the incentives for holding the executive in the organisation accountable for ensuring that across the implementation of the strategy, that there’s the right stakeholder engagement across the risk management. And so if the board isn’t actively engaged and equipped to be driving this conversation, then it’s really hard for the organization to go forward.
So we see boards who are trying to work out how they take up that role. We also see some, in some cases, chairs, or CEOs, looking to bring the board with them. And we see organisations getting stuck, where they might have created an internal group or capacity. And that group is working out how do they engage the board, it’s incredibly important that the leadership comes from the top on this and sends the signal that this is serious business. This is this is about changing the way we do things. And we know from the literature about whether it’s about adopting good ideas or about innovations, that often where things break down is where the there’s not either the stewardship for it, or the board might see the direction of travel, and anticipate it, you know, think about Kodak or Blockbuster video, but they are not able to bring their organisation with them in how they execute that role.
So our perspective is that it’s really one of the next frontiers for how we can develop the impact market and cut through some of the barriers. It’s something that we’ve been working on, since about 2018, when we were looking at, at how do we pull the big levers to widen participation and deepen the practice that can create the virtuous cycle to keep moving us towards a more positive impact in the ecosystem. And we’ve been developing that idea since so it’s been very exciting to get to a point that notwithstanding COVID, we’ve been able to bring this together and bring it to the market. We have a fantastic new colleague, Serafina Maiorano, who’s working out of Adelaide as our executive officer. And it’s, you know, it’s a rare privilege on to have a values aligned team with such companies.
John Treadgold
We’ve talked a lot about these definitions and the delta between the years change impact. And I think in the investing world, it’s starting to be understood, and people are engaging with it. But at that corporate level ESG is that is still at a base level. Is it a challenge to explain that next step towards impact? Or are people engaging it? How are you finding that?
Rosemary Addis
So I think, like in every market organisations are different levels, you get some that are quite agile, you get others that have more, you know, embedded processes, and find it harder to shift. There are some organisations that are natural leaders are naturally interested in that conversation, including in how they differentiate themselves in the market, how they spot new opportunities. And then there are others that go through a kind of progression from that starting with compliance or seeing different reporting requirements, coming through or understanding, you know, building their understanding of the risks around, for example, climate, or diversity or modern slavery, or some of the things that have been promised. And then getting a point to where they might progress to say, Well, if we have to do the compliance anyway, are we missing opportunities? Are we leaving money in and good people and opportunities to develop our business on the sidelines? And they kind of go forward from there?
John Treadgold
So just as much diversity as ever? I encourage people to check out the website and have a look at the list of your colleagues, it really is a great group, and seems that you’ve managed to, to cherry pick the individuals that have those convening roles within their own countries and sort of brought them together to a bit of a global powerhouse. So that’s great. And another role that you’ve just taken on your your, in your new office at the Uni of Melbourne. It’s really interesting that you were telling me about it earlier, you’re an enterprise Professor, can you explain as you did for me earlier about, about what that means you’re not quite teaching, but you are bringing all of these concepts deeper into the organisation.
Rosemary Addis
So it’s really a privilege to have this role. It’s something that the University of Melbourne developed five’ish years ago, understanding that it would be valuable to the university and to building bridges between the university and, industry and community to bring people whose experience and, professional credentials are based around practice, to complement the core strength of the university around teaching and research. And so this position falls into that category. I’m an enterprise professor at the Faculty of Business and Economics, formally been welcomed by the Department of Accounting here. Working to where the academics have already identified gaps in the curriculum that perhaps would like support, facilitating,who could help us bridge that? How do we navigate this space and anyone in the backfield knows that that can be a little bit of a challenge to navigate your way around? Who’s doing what who’s doing it well. So that’s something I can bring to the table.
Research questions that need to be answered the serious work that’s been done around the world in helping to develop practice and how that links into the research and industry engagement so that we can help to inform the practice, for example, Chief Sustainability Officers with research that’s been done.
An example of that could be, you know, that as people start to look at, well, how do we incentivize for impact? Let’s make sure they’re informed by the research about what does and doesn’t work about incentives, even better financial results, and then ask the questions about what would that mean, in terms of how we try to sense incentivize people for integrated results in terms of financial and impact performance?
Understanding the questions they, you know, they have, and in some of these areas, we’re tracking professional development, real time. So you know, we can bring in insights and networks about who’s doing what and where, into the university context. So I feel very privileged to have that position. I’ve been really welcomed by colleagues here and universities have an amazing array of things going on. So the hardest part of my job is working out, you know, where to, you know, where to engage.
John Treadgold
I look so important that we talk about the evolution of all of these frameworks and shifting nature of finance, but so good then to touch base with the learning institutions and go back to the students and see how they’re engaging with it. And how that sort of baseline is adopting it and evolving itself.
Rosemary Addis
Well, it’s a passion of me and many of my colleagues who have worked in this field, not just in Australia, but around the world, to say, you know, how can we be educating the next generation of leaders and potential leaders and practitioners, that they are equipped for the change, we need to see, and starting to build their foundations of understanding of that, while they’re at universities and institutions like this one, and, and then taking that with them.
John Treadgold
Well, look, I’ll let you go. But before I do, do you have a book recommendation for us. I’m not sure if you’ve got it, you’ve got it. You’ve got one book in the background there. But that might not be one you want to talk about.
Rosemary Addis
I read an interesting book recently recommended by my husband called The Biggest Bluff by Maria Konnikova. And she is a behavioral psychologist who took a year off to learn how to play poker, and she’s written about what she learned in the process, and how that’s been affected. The way that she works in her relationships as well as becoming very good at poker along the way.
John Treadgold
That one’s on my list, I think I’ve heard her speak on another podcast, and it comes down to risk, right? She looks at risk from all different angles.
Rosemary Addis
Risk is certainly a big feature of it. But also that dimension as we were talking about before that it’s never, it’s never purely about
John Treadgold
That’s perfect isn’t it all about people and individuals, which finance sometimes engages with but we’re trying to integrate that more and more. Alright, Rosemary, let’s leave it there. Thank you very much for all of those insights always value your unique place in the ecosystem globally and locally. So let’s stay in touch. Good stuff.
Rosemary Addis
Thanks very much, John. It’s a pleasure to be with you.
