, that the netherlands is among the frontrunners in the world in terms of incorporating sustainability considerations in finance. many of our financial institutions assess esg factors in their investment decisions. based on a survey we recently conducted, 17 out 28 surveyed financial institutions measure the carbon footprint of at least a part of their balance sheet. and 9 of those have even committed to lowering that carbon footprint. furthermore, our banks have collectively issued a climate statement, an sdg - dialogue document, and an international covenant on human rights in project finance. they are key players in the equator principles, in carbon disclosure and divestment initiatives. many of our insurers and pension funds, bring up esg - issues in investor calls, and have esg - engagement strategies. and three out of the top 10 of most sustainable companies worldwide according to the canadian investment advisor corporate knights are dutch. in short, the dutch are rather active indeed on this issue and we ’ ve already in fact come quite far. and we ’ re probably a lot further than where people thought we would be 5 or 10 years ago. so, whenever you feel the challenge is insurmountable, just think back to where we stood 10 or, if you go through a moment of particular pessimism, 20 years ago, and where we stand today. hopefully the realization of how far we ’ ve progressed already, will give you enough energy to keep going. dnb initiatives the second consideration - because i promised you two - is that you are not alone in facing this challenge. of course, there are all the signatories to the principles of this manifesto. but actually, your central bank and supervisor faces a similar challenge. you see, dnb, as i ’ m sure many of you know, has been quite active on the topic of climate risks : both on physical risks stemming from climate change, as well as on transition risks, stemming from legislation or market developments. about 2 years ago, we issued a report called time for transition. in this report we investigated the potential impact of the energy transition on the dutch economy, and we noted that the upcoming transition is in fact one of the biggest medium to long term challenges to our economy and therefore for our financial sector. and a few weeks ago we published a report called waterproof?, in which we took a closer look at climate risks in the dutch financial sector. in this report, we concluded that in both a 1. 5 degrees and 3. 5 degrees scenario,

specifics for individual sectors. for some sectors, such as the financial sector, these standards appear to be too broad. regarding the fair value option, the gap between the parties involved related mainly to the reliability, comparability and relevance of accounting figures in firms´ financial statements. there were fears that the unrestricted use of fair values could open the door to manipulation and the use of inaccurate valuation methods, which might hurt reliability. moreover, different institutions could use the fair value option in very different ways, which might hamper comparability. and finally, the use of fair values might not be in line with sound risk management practices within institutions, bringing into question the relevance of reported figures. now, congruence between sensible standards and sound internal risk management practice is important. jan hommen said as much, in the speech i referred to earlier : for financial institutions, accounting requirements must align as much as possible with internal risk management policies. and with time running short, the question how to bridge the gap became more and more urgent : between a broad standard on the one hand, and the restriction to a context of good governance and risk management on the other. searching for an acceptable outcome it is important, in this kind of process, to listen carefully to each other and to search for common ground. iasb was strongly bent on an unrestricted option for reasons of principle and in order to maintain simplicity. banks and insurers disagreed on the proposed restrictions. and regulators were concerned about the possible abuse of the option. we as banking regulators then engaged in very informal discussions with banking representatives. we drafted proposals that made sense to both banks and banking regulators. this was possible because we applied a simple principle : good governance banks want a level playing field based on sound risk management practices. four months later, the now likely outcome is that iasb will have framed the option within sensible boundaries – and will require comprehensive disclosures about underlying risk management practices, thereby serving transparency. simple, in the end, and sensible – but after much perspiration. this outcome should strike the right balance between iasb on the one hand, and financial institutions and prudential regulators on the other. i trust this balance in outcome will receive the support of the european commission as well. wrap up let me now wrap up my speech. i have given you dnb´s view on some elements of public oversight and how we contribute to transparency and to solutions that make sense. both from a business and a supervisory perspective