David Wray: Navigating ESG, Sustainability, and the Evolving Role of CFOs 

In a recent CFO Club podcast episode, Nicolaas van Wyk had an insightful discussion with David Wray, a seasoned CFO and expert on ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance). David shared his unique perspectives on the evolving demands of the CFO role, sustainability, and global standards, offering invaluable advice to financial leaders. 

Career Evolution: A Non-Traditional Pathway

David’s career journey reflects a shift from credit enforcement and finance operations to leadership roles in global organisations. His experiences emphasize the importance of connecting early-career lessons to broader challenges, such as sustainability and ethical governance. CFOs must embrace diverse roles and adapt to evolving global standards to stay relevant. 

David highlighted the need for CFOs to understand ESG’s intricacies, noting how these principles integrate into every business aspect. He shared a poignant example of an ice cream company addressing honeybee population declines to ensure supply chain continuity, underscoring how ecological considerations affect profitability. ESG is not just about compliance; it’s a framework for long-term business viability and resilience. 

As head of the ESG Working Group for the International CFO Alliance (ICFOA), David emphasized the importance of standardization and alignment across global frameworks. He pointed out that misaligned reporting requirements create challenges for organisations operating internationally. Unified standards enhance comparability and ensure businesses adapt efficiently to global regulations. 

David acknowledged concerns about the costs of implementing sustainability measures, particularly in countries like South Africa, where unemployment remains high. He advocates for recognizing social issues as part of the broader ESG conversation and promoting a just transition for businesses in these regions. CFOs must address sustainability challenges while fostering economic development in their contexts. 

Resilience and Agility: The Future for CFOs 

David concluded with advice on navigating geopolitical tensions and economic changes, stressing the need for resilience and agility. Scenario planning, diversification, and embracing technology like AI are vital strategies. Financial leaders must combine human-centered skills with strategic foresight to thrive in uncertain times. 

The integration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles into corporate strategy has become a pivotal responsibility for Chief Financial Officers (CFOs). Their role has evolved from traditional financial oversight to becoming key drivers of sustainability initiatives that align with business objectives. 

The CFO’s Role in ESG Integration 

CFOs are uniquely positioned to lead ESG efforts due to their comprehensive understanding of financial and operational aspects of the business. Their responsibilities now encompass: 

• Strategic Alignment: Ensuring ESG initiatives are integrated with the company’s strategic goals, thereby enhancing long-term value creation.  

• Risk Management: Identifying and mitigating ESG-related risks, which are increasingly recognized as indicators of potential business vulnerabilities.  

• Transparent Reporting: Overseeing the development of robust ESG reporting mechanisms to ensure transparency and compliance with evolving regulatory frameworks.  

Current Trends in ESG Adoption 

Recent studies highlight the growing emphasis on ESG among CFOs: 

• Increased Integration: Over half of surveyed CFOs have embedded ESG principles into their core business strategies or are actively working towards it, marking a significant increase from previous years.  

• Shift in Priorities: There is a notable transition from viewing ESG merely as a compliance requirement to recognizing it as a driver of brand reputation, talent acquisition, and overall business success.  

Challenges and Considerations 

Despite the positive momentum, CFOs face challenges in ESG integration: 

• Data Management: Collecting and analyzing ESG data requires new capabilities and technologies to ensure accuracy and reliability.  

• Regulatory Compliance: Staying abreast of rapidly evolving ESG regulations demands continuous monitoring and adaptation.  

• Stakeholder Engagement: Effectively communicating ESG efforts to investors, regulators, and other stakeholders is crucial for building trust and securing support. 

Final Thoughts 

The podcast sheds light on the multifaceted role of CFOs today—balancing profitability with sustainability and navigating complex global systems. As David noted, “There is no business on a dead planet,” a reminder that ESG is not just an obligation but an opportunity to lead meaningful change. 

Transcript:

Nicolaas van Wyk: Hello, everyone. It’s Nicolaas van Wyk hosting another session for CFO Club. And today, we’re speaking with David Wray, a well-known expert, especially with regard ESG, but a man of many talents, and we’re very happy to have David on board. David, welcome to another edition of the podcast for CFO Club. And before I give you a chance, a little bit about CFO Club, it’s a division of CIBA, the Chartered Institute for Business Accountants. 
 
And, you can go to our website, cfoclub.co.za, or find us on LinkedIn. We create a network group, do some engagement with regulators, obtain podcasts like this, and then host events for CFOs, in South Africa and in Namibia. And, but the thing, and the most important thing, I suppose, that we’re involved with is the ICFOA, the International CFO Alliance, and we annually do a, CFO summit. And this year, it’ll be in Mexico. We’ll share some more detail as we move closer to that date, but that’s always a big event on any CFO’s calendar. 
 
So, if you are a listener, make a make a date already in your diaries for November 2025 and join the CFO summit and the CFO tour to Mexico. But today, we’re speaking about, I suppose it’s going to be a quite a variety of topics, and our guest is David Wray. He’s, staying in Canada, but also working in France. He’s involved with the International CFO Alliance. I’ve, acted as a CFO for some very, big and large corporates, global corporates, and then also works closely with professional bodies internationally, especially in the accounting sector. 
 
And I think most recently appointed, on the ethics board of the international, ethics standards board. That’s a board related to IFAK, which is quite familiar, I suppose, to most CFOs in South Africa. But, let me then hand over to David. We will be discussing; we’re very interested in his own career development. That’s always a guiding note for our own CFOs. 
 
And then, moving from there, we’re going to speak more about the ICFOA and its relevant functions and then specifically, the role of the CFO when it comes to ESG. And the standards have been issued already. Global regulators are all gearing up for the additional reporting requirements for that’s going to be placed on CFOs, so we’re very blessed to have somebody that’s really in the inner circle of all these developments, David Wray. So let me hand over to David. David, give us an introduction to yourself, how your career started, and maybe just share some insights, of your career and what you’re currently doing. 
 
David Wray: Perfect. Thank you, Nicolaas. So it’s really a pleasure to be here, and thank you for the invitation and the chance to share, I think, maybe some international perspectives, but then also some personal perspectives that I think are quite interesting and hopefully quite helpful for CFOs as they either are in the early parts of their career or mid-career or even thinking about, a late career change, which is not uncommon anymore. So, I think to your point, maybe I’ll start a little bit with my career. It’s probably not been a traditional career by any stretch of imagination, and perhaps, that’s the new norm, I think, that we see more and more. 
 
And, certainly, when I speak to CFOs all around the world, I hear that quite a lot. Funnily enough, I started out in credit, and really working through credit enforcement, pursuing bad debts, small claims courts, things like that within the finance functions. It really was helpful because it gave a very interesting perspective into client and customer composition and how to think about financial assessments and credit assessments around clients as well and what types of circumstances potentially led clients into challenging situations, which is always helpful when you’re thinking about things like asset impairments, which I thought about much later when it came to accounts receivable, and I had more of an accounting function. So, it’s always interesting to recognize that every activity we do, early part of career all the way through late part of career, has some connectivity and some relevance even if we don’t find it particularly, interesting or particularly sexy at the time. So that’s really where I started my career. 
 
And then I ended up deciding, okay. Well, I think it would be more interested to move into more of a controllership accounting type of function. So, I actually decided at that point to pursue, a designation for being a professional accountant in Canada. I started out doing that and did that while I was working, so there were 2 streams that you could follow in Canada, which was very helpful. 1 is, of course, the traditional route, which a lot of people follow and go through one of the accounting firms, and, typically, they go through audit related activities. 
 
I must be honest. Audit never interested me all that much, so it wasn’t a route I was particularly excited about. So, I was quite happy when they offered opportunities to be in business and become designated through business, which was great. So, I ended up doing that and took on more and more responsibility within controllership. So, it started at the local level in Canada, then moved to the regional level, and then, ultimately, the global level. 
 
And that was interesting because you see then the different practices all around the world, which, again, I find very, very interesting because it gives this perspective as to, okay. Well, how does it all fit together? And what is it that drives certain practices? And you might think, well, why is that even relevant? Well, funnily enough, it became very relevant as I moved into sustainability because then you start to understand the cultural drivers around what happens on ESG related initiatives in a particular country and why something might be challenging in one area more so than in another area. 
 
So, as I said, everything ultimately always fits together. And then later on in my career, as I moved from technology into telco and telecom, Again, it was just looking at something on a wider scale and taking on more finance executives’ role executive roles at an international or global level, which was always really quite exciting. And then probably for the last, I would say, 5 to 8 years or so, I’ve done a lot of work in the connectivity and the connection between finance and sustainability and looking at how and why those two topics need to be connected if we’re going to see meaningful change. And, you know, what kind of mindset needs to go along with that, and then how do we end up fostering that within the context of the profession and the CFO function. So that’s a little bit about my journey. 
 
And within that context, I’ve done a lot of work with not for profits, from the UN University through Capitals Coalition and a number of other organizations as well to really see, you know, how can we further the integration of the finance function and that skill set and that expertise so we can drive sustainable, meaningful change that’s still profitable. So being a finance guy, of course, I’m not one of these individuals that says, well, profits not important. It is important. It’s what drives business. However, it’s not the only thing that drives business. 
 
So I think it’s the balance that we need to be able to have conversations about, and it’s in that balance that we’ll find, I think, the go forward strategy for every country everywhere in the world, but, of course, adapted in many respects to cultural norms, to local practices, etcetera. That is a nice summary of a very successful career, and I think it gives everybody guidance, especially your point about what you learn in your early career always comes back. You always find new application and new perspective. So, it does it does grow on you and make you a more relevant, CFO. It does. 
 
Nicolaas van Wyk: A few questions. I think you but you’re also involved with professional bodies. That’s also something I find interesting, being a CFO in business. The organization in Canada, is that the certified public accountant, the CPA?  
 
David Wray: Yeah. Its certified professional accountant is what CPA stands for. Certified, public accountant is the US designation. But yes. So, they’re the body that accredits all, professional accountants in Canada, and there’s one at the national level, which typically gets involved in standard setting and influencing international standard setting. So, for example, they would be the liaison for the IFRS Foundation either through the ISB, so the International Accounting Standards Board, or the International Sustainability Standards Board as an example. 
 
And, of course, they interact, as you quite rightly said in the introduction, with IFAC and then looking at ISBA, which is the body of which I’m a board member. So that’s the International Ethics Standards Boards for Accountants and the International Audit and Assurance Sustainability, Standards Board, The IAASB is, of course, a sister board to ISBAC, and they set standards for assurance and auditing on a global basis. So, again, they affect the whole profession. It’s very interesting how when you think about where your career has gone and how you’ve interacted. That you can bring this skill set to bear at the end and share some important perspectives. 
 
Because, historically, a lot of these boards have been staffed primarily from individuals from practice. And that’s but one perspective. Right? There are perspectives around regulators. They have a very different perspective. 
 
I’ll give you a very simple example. When a regulator looks at a standard, its thought process, quite rightly, is around enforceability. So, it thinks about, okay. How do I enforce this standard? If I’m going to mandate it in the country, how do I enforce it? 
 
What am I going to look for? How am I going to measure good versus not good, for instance? If you think about a business, a business wants clarity on what’s required, but it also wants flexibility to be able to apply principles and judgment to how those standards apply to its company, for instance. If you think about the profession, you know, any one of the, let’s say, top 10 accounting firms globally, they think about Assurant. How do I audit this thing? 
 
How do I make sure I do a good job, and I keep myself on the right side of the audit of the audit regulator? So, you can see how, you know, all these perspectives come at it from a different lens. And then, of course, you’ve got investors and other stakeholder groups. So, I think we’re starting to see that diversification at the international level, which is super important. And it’s relevant because the voice of business is perhaps the voice that’s been the least heard over the years. 
 
And it needs to be heard because, ultimately, companies and CFOs are the ones that must do the work. They must implement it. They must make it work in practice and operate it. So, understanding what they deal with, the challenges they deal with, and why they deal with those challenges is important to shaping and thinking about how standards are structured. So that’s just giving you a very simple example, and sometimes why this into me is super exciting. 
 
Nicolaas van Wyk: And also very relevant, from my side, being the CEO of a professional body for accountants, we come from a particular perspective. But sometimes it’s difficult to get the CFOs and the financial managers involved in the work of our work groups because they have this focus of, in business, and we don’t need external, regulators, associations. We therefore profit. We do business, and they sometimes look don’t integrate themselves into this ecosystem.  
 
But then always complain about when the standards are issued or, that it’s unworkable, but they never participate. So, there’s always this, I don’t know, conflict between the accountants in business, obviously very busy, focused on reporting to the board, compliance issues. So, it’s a difficult job, but something that you, for many years, did, as a CFO. But then you have this unique perspective because you also work on the other side.  I’m very happy. 
 
And maybe explore that a bit more and just explain this ecosystem that we all operate in and why it’s important to participate.

David Wray: It’s a great question. And what I would say is there are 2 dynamics that CFOs need to keep in mind. One is they can’t just be internally focused. When I say that, this the typical response will be, well, David, I’m not just internally focused. 
 
I think about my investors, my lenders. I agree. Great. But those are only a couple of the external stakeholders that organizations need to worry about. They need to worry about their suppliers. 
 
They need to worry about how their suppliers, for example, are doing business, not just what they’re selling them and the price at which they’re selling it or the quality at which it’s being fabricated, for consumption, but they need to think about how those suppliers are, for instance, treating their workers. You know? Are they providing them fair pay in good working conditions? Because that’s regulated now. So, I think CFOs need to think a little bit more broadly. 
 
We haven’t been trained within the profession quite candidly, in my view, enough to think about this wider ecosystem environment. We’ve been very focused around, internal metrics, internal reporting, management reporting, external compliance related reporting, lenders, and things like that. But we operate everyone operates. Every organization operates within a system, and that system is completely connected. Everything is connected to everything. 
 
And, you know, I think when CFOs start to realize that everything is connected, that a move in one area almost has like a butterfly effect. If you remember the film with, Ashton Kutcher called I think it was called The Butterfly Effect, where it basically showed you that one action somewhere had consequences somewhere else in the world. And it’s very true. That’s very true of every organization in every community and every country. And I think that’s part of where the profession is starting to evolve, and it needs to accelerate that evolution. 
 
And, you know, what’s happened in the meantime is where the profession hasn’t done that for itself or where companies haven’t behaved with that mindset, then the response has been regulation. Because regulators ultimately will require and do require that organizations behave in a socially, responsible manner. Because ultimately, companies and I think it’s important that we all remember this. Companies exist because society is permitted. Now you might say that’s a bit of a radical statement, but if you think about it, it’s not really because companies are allowed to incorporate. 
 
They’re allowed to operate because local governments allow them to do that. They set up laws and structures around which that can happen. And if organizations abuse that or, by extension, individuals within the organization abuse that, then governments step in and change it. So, I think it’s important that when to your earlier point, when you think about CFOs are very busy, I totally agree. You and I both know what that’s like. 
 
However, if you don’t get involved and you don’t engage and you don’t vote, so to speak, so in other words, you don’t voice your view or you don’t share your view or share your concerns, then you almost forego your right to complain, as you said a little bit earlier. Now it’s a bit extreme, and I’m not necessarily a big advocate of that kind of thinking, but I think there’s some truth in it. So, I think that CFOs that want to optimize things for their organization and for how their organizations operate have a responsibility to understand the environment within which they operate, not just locally, but regionally and internationally and what those supply chains look like and then what some of the elements are, be them risks or opportunities that can affect them. And maybe I’ll give you one very simple example of, let’s say, a nature-based effect and the effect that it has on a company. So there’s an ice cream brand, a very well-known ice cream brand, that depends on almonds as part of its ingredient. 
 
Now, of course, we know almonds are significant consumption based plants for water, but I’ll set aside the water question for just a minute, and I’ll talk about it more from a pollination perspective and the honeybees that are necessary to pollinate the plants that ultimately give yield to almonds. And this ice cream company realized, as we’ve all heard in different parts of the world, that the honeybee population is under threat. It’s disappearing for all sorts of reasons, be them disease, be it climate change. There are several reasons why it’s happening. And this particular ice cream company realized if it didn’t start doing something to promote healthy colonies of honeybees close to its almond trees, then it was going to have a very serious problem in its ability to manufacture its product. 
 
So that’s what I mean when I talk about understanding the connectivity that we have as an organization with the environment and the world around us, be it nature, be it people, be it governments, communities, etcetera. And I think that’s the mindset that we need to see a little bit more of and why it’s so important that CFOs get involved so they can start to understand how and what they need to be thinking about within the context of their organization. So, I don’t know if that helps, but it’s just a simple example of just honestly how connected we are. And the quicker we realize it, I think the more successful we’ll collectively be.  
 
Nicolaas van Wyk: No. I totally agree. I think what we sometimes miss and as illustrated by you is that bigger ecosystem and that companies should play a role and that there’s both, international standard setting entities as well as local. And they should provide budget for their CFOs in time. 
 
Maybe it should be in their contracts that they should participate in those things. Because stand aloof and away from it, and then that is not an answer. Like you said, it’s a complicated integrated, system that needs everybody to participate, to a government level, I just want to use this example. I once did a analysis of the IFRS Foundation’s budget. 
 
And then you can see the all the countries that contribute. It’s the US, China, and then the UK, France, Europe. And then Africa is not really featuring. I think at one here, the biggest contribution from Africa was our own, listed, burst that’s the Janus Web exchange. 
 
And I think they made, like, 7 and a half $1,000. And I thought to myself, really? In the whole of Africa, that’s what we contribute to the funds that set the standards that we all use to apply financial statements. And, and that’s something internally as well with our own Financial Reporting Standards Council that’s, just continuously under budget, underfunded by government. So it’s also I suppose that is where associations comes in, that we need to engage with governments, inform them about the importance of standards and what it means for an economy, and that they allocate proper budgets for this. 
 
Because, like you rightly said, it’s not that, like, you’ll be sometimes from Africa, we’re very quick to say that we’ve been excluded. But I suppose most of the time, it’s not us just participating and funding something properly and then trying to shape it, to get an outcome that benefits your own economy and your, own companies.

David Wray: It’s an interesting point, Nicolaas, because I think that there are certainly there are 2 schools of thought around standard setting. One school of thought is that you’ve got standard setting that is very much driven by a capitalist, quote, unquote, northern hemisphere mindset. And that mindset would then be to the exclusion of others, other parts of the world and other ways of thinking. 
 
And then you’ve got the other end of the spectrum where people say, well, no no, as you articulated, it’s more of a choice. And I think the answer lies in between. So I think there are certainly a number of standard setting bodies that struggle with genuine inclusion, and that’s for a variety of reasons, whether it’s access to individuals or actors within the ecosystem that they traditionally haven’t spoken to you and therefore haven’t engaged with. 
 
And sometimes what happens is there’s a mindset that’s developed without even realizing the mindset is biased, and, therefore, it’s biased against certain parts of the world because they’re structured very differently. And I think that’s something you know, when you get involved at an international level, it’s important to understand that happens. It’s happened historically. In some cases, it continues to happen today. And it’s something I think we need to really work hard against. 
 
And, you know, you see a lot of it at the moment, and maybe as we talk a little bit later when we get into some more specifics on sustainability and the future of sustainability, I’ll share a couple of examples because there are some real political headwinds that are being faced globally that are driven by ideologies that are more self-serving rather than, holistic in their thinking. And that’s a challenge. And, you know, standard setters sometimes are not immune from that. You know, sometimes that ends up permeating through either its members or its advisory boards or advisory committees, you know, because at the end of the day, people are people, and people have, you know, inherent biases. So, I think it’s important that we continue to make sure that we remain aware of that, and that’s true of CFOs as well. 
 
We have a biased way of thinking, and our biased way of thinking is around profitability. And sometimes it’s profitability to the exclusion of all other things. And, again, it’s a level of bias because of a whole series of things, be them education, training, you know, whatever the case may be, stakeholders as well. And that’s part of where we’ve got to remember we need to sometimes step back and think about things and say, okay. Is this the right way going forward? 
 
Is there a better way? And then it’s the realization that, you know, contrary to popular belief, it is incredibly profitable to do the right thing, to be a sustainable company, to be a responsible company. It’s extremely profitable. It’s just how you think about it. And that’s what I mean by really tackling those biases. 
 
Nicolaas van Wyk: So speaking about sustainability, you have a very important role within the International CFO Alliance, an organization that, we were intimately involved in in setting up and, getting all the different stakeholders involved and growing to what it currently is. And the organisation has some work groups and you’re heading up the ESG working group. Just tell us more about the ICFOA, the role you see they play, and then the work of the of your own committee within, the ICFOA.

David Wray: Sure. I think it’s a it’s a great example of an organization, a not for profit organization, that is looking to bring together CFOs from all around the world through their national CFO bodies, be them alliances, associations, or whatever they are, and really promote collaboration, dialogue, exchange so that we elevate the profession as a whole. 
 
That’s the philosophy behind ICFOA, which I think is a very healthy philosophy. Within the context of that, you’re right. There are several working groups. The working group that I look after is ESG. So it’s really looking at how, the ESG space or sustainability space is affecting the profession or being influenced by the profession and what it is that CFOs, 1, need to be aware of, and then, 2, what do they need to do to be able to take constructive action to be a positive force in what is an inevitable journey towards something much more sustainable. 
 
So to that end, what we do as a work group is we get quite active in monitoring what’s happening around the world. So, we certainly monitor what happens with the IFRS Foundation, both boards, so the Accounting Standards Board and the Sustainability Standards Board. And we look at what happens in the US. The US now is a bit of an interesting, I think, animal because there’s a sea change political philosophy. So, I think there’s still to be determined what will happen. 
 
I mean, certainly, there is concern that there is a little bit of backward movement in the context of the US, with the incoming presidency. We’ll see, if that’s talk or if, in fact, it converts to action. But similarly, we monitor what happens in Canada. We monitor what happens in Latin America, in Africa, and in parts of Asia, and we get involved. We look at what the public consultations are, what it is that’s being proposed in some of these geographies or jurisdictions, and we look to see, okay, how is that affecting our member bodies in those countries, you know, and what do we think about what that impact is. 
 
And then we also think about it not just locally, but we think about it more regionally and more globally because, of course, many organizations do business internationally. So, on that basis, something that happens in, let’s say, 10 jurisdictions could affect a company 10 different ways if they’re not integrated or interoperable, in some way. And that’s part of what we do as a working group is we make sure that our voice is heard around interoperability, you know, alignment of standards, and making sure that there isn’t divergence. And sometimes, CFOs may have heard, and you’ve probably heard this concept of the alphabet soup as well. Right? 
 
And the alphabet soup is literally what it sounds like. It’s just a variety of differences, and it’s just a mismatch and a large collection of different perspectives, different requirements, different standards, different reporting mechanisms, etcetera. And part of what we’re trying to do is to say that doesn’t work for a company. It really doesn’t work, but it also doesn’t work for investors. It doesn’t work for any of the external actors in the ecosystem because the comparability is lost. 
 
It’s very difficult to compare, for example, what a company is doing from Brazil versus South Africa versus Singapore if everybody’s reporting requirements are dramatically different. So to promote well-functioning capital markets and promote the public interest, we need to think about, you know, what ethical standards are required to promote good practice globally, what assurance standards are required to make sure that the assurance level is consistent and appropriate around the world so that the data or information can be trusted, and then are the reporting requirements consistent? Do they speak a consistent language? Do they present in a consistent manner so that, again, all these actors within this broader system can understand? Or if you want to look at it internally, can CFOs compare themselves to their peers? 
 
Very difficult if what a peer is reporting is dramatically different in a different part of the world, but very much easier if it’s done in a consistent language, a consistent format, consistent concepts, etcetera. So that’s part of what we do in our group is we really try to drive the reinforcement of that consistency and the importance of international collaboration between the bodies as well.

Nicolaas van Wyk: A comment I hear from some CFOs is the costs related to sustainability. I was attending a conference, and somebody from the JSE, was doing a sharing their survey that they did amongst, listed companies. And they found that for a listed company, even a small one, to adjust its systems to align with the new ISSB standards and do a reporting will cost them, like, in the millions, to file the first report and get themselves, aligned. 
 
So there is a cost involved in it. And how you how would we go about justifying that? And the reason that would be particularly interesting for South Africa is, several companies have been delisting from the JSE. Yeah. Used to have quite, I think, let’s say, 6 or 800 companies listed, and that top to, like, 200 or less. 
 
People are going, by with equity roots. Because of the cost of listing, and, well, sustainability, just add to that, I think that’s a big concern.  The other development from a developing country, with, I read those stats the other day again, and it’s just shocking to me. It’s, like, overwhelming. 
 
Like, youth unemployment in South Africa is 50%, and then general unemployment, I think, like, 33, 34%. So that that kind of leaves you just saying, listen. I we don’t care how this economy runs, but we must get these people out of poverty. How do you bring down those necessary but complex arguments about the realignment, to a country like South Africa, huge unemployment, and then also the cost of running business? 
 
David Wray: It’s a great question. So, I think that on the cost of implementing any requirement, any regulation, I think it’s 2 things are important just to make sure we keep in mind. International standards are not enforced locally unless the local regulator mandates it. That’s when they become mandatory. Right? 
 
Usually, prior to that, unless the country mandates it for its companies, it’s usually voluntary. So, it’s the regulator that makes all of this a requirement locally. It’s not the international standard setter. So, I think sometimes it’s helpful to remember that. Therefore, the conversation with the international standard setters is proactive with the regulators tends to be more reactive because now the standard’s set, and then it’s how does it get implemented locally. 
 
That said, yes. You’re right. There’s absolutely a cost to doing it. I think it’s important to remember there’s also a cost to not doing it. Think back to that example I just gave with the ice cream company. 
 
If they hadn’t done something, regardless of whether they’ve reported or not for just a minute, but just even getting into the point of thinking about it, which most companies are not doing well today, some are doing incredibly well in this space, and they’re very proactive in thinking about the connectedness or the connectivity of their business with their environment within which they operate. Again, irrespective of reporting requirements, they just understand it’s important for the ongoing survival of the company, right, the ongoing viability of the company. But there are others that don’t recognize that yet, and that’s where we have a gap, and, hence, the regulation has come in. But it’s important to remember that not doing these things has a direct cost to the company as well. It’s only a question of time. 
 
And the problem is unless there’s something explicit that’s being monitored and I think Dave Hewlett and Bill Packard, who founded the Hewlett Packard Company, had a very, I think, relevant philosophy. And their philosophy is what gets measured gets done. So, they put requirements in place in the company to make sure that certain things that were important to the company’s viability, long term short term, medium term, and long term, not just short term, were managed. And that’s exactly what regulation is all about. It really will end up ensuring that healthy companies thrive and companies that are unhealthy and do not adapt will not thrive. They will end.
 
And there are some pockets within the global discussion that believe that’s the way it should be, that you want healthy companies that are responsible, that protect nature, that protect people, and so on and so forth. Do this naturally. Now why do I say this as the emphasis? I say this as the emphasis because if a company is doing these things naturally, the reporting is easy.
Why? Because it’s managing it. It’s already measuring and managing it itself for internal purposes. So, the external reporting element becomes easy. So, when I hear car companies sometimes argue and say, oh, it’s so difficult. 
 
We don’t have the data, all that says to me is, okay. Then are you managing these things today? Because your consumption around water, for example, is super important because water is a scarce commodity, and we can’t live as human beings without it. Do you see what I mean? So, I think it’s this whole idea of if you’re doing things naturally, reporting on them is very easy. 
 
If you’re not doing them, then, of course, reporting is going to be very difficult because now you have to go and find the data. But I do see this as a good thing because it will, help companies survive longer term that need to survive because there are many companies that perhaps need a little bit of help around, managing certain resources better, and this will help them do that. Fantastic. Because those are companies that should survive, and that need to thrive, and we need to support them and help them. So, I really have mixed feelings when I hear, organizations say it’s very expensive, it’s going to stop business, and I would argue so will the opposite. 
 
It’s just a question of time. So the question is do you want to thrive only for today, tomorrow, perhaps the next half a dozen quarters, or do you want to thrive in the long term when you’ve potentially got dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of employees that you’re also responsible for and need to make sure that they’ve got good salaries because, again, that contributes to society. So that’s what I that’s just another example of the wider interconnectedness and why I think it’s important that if we can see that, we don’t tend to get hung up on the short-term costs. We tend to then focus very quickly on, okay. How do I make this something valuable for my organization? 
 
Because it is valuable. You know? How do I make sure I get these insights so I can act in a manner that is better for the company? How do I make sure I’ve got better jobs, better locations? How do I make sure I’m staving off threats because now I’m aware of those threats? 
 
It’s things like that. So that’s where I have mixed feelings. But to your point on the unemployment in South Africa and the social issue, there are countries around the world, to your point, Nicolaas, where the social issue is a really, important one. And it’s prevalent and it’s painful and it has all kinds of consequences, not just unemployment, but there are other consequences as well. Sometimes, there are high instances of crime, for example, and other social issues, and we need to tackle that. 
 
You know, we cannot let people remain in circumstances that are dire, either where they’re underpaid, not paid, or they’re in forced labor situations or child labor situations. We must deal with all of that, and I think that’s where the conversation around the just transition or a fair transition needs to be considered because not every economy has at the same level of majority. So, I think there needs to be a way to tell the story that gives that context. And that’s something that, as an ICFOA ESG working group, we advocated when we publicly commented on the IFRS S1 and S2 standards. You know, we really did promote the use of the just transition as a way for companies to tell their story, recognizing that in certain jurisdictions, social issues were far more damaging at that point in time than even potentially environmental ones. 
 
So, I don’t know if that gives you a little bit of color on context, but there are always ways. To tackle it. And, again, that’s where the CFO’s voice becomes important. They need to voice that and say, hey. This is why we have the struggle. 
 
Nicolaas van Wyk: No. I agree. And it’s a complex matrix between the e and the s and the g. And it’s one of those things that if you, just, talk about it, then, yeah, you can say, I understand what it is. But as soon as you move closer, then the devils in the detail, and it becomes complex. 

And I think maybe that’s why some people would avoid talking about it, because you have to have to think hard about what how the future should look. And it comes back to your point about the nature of a company, and it was created and allowed by society, to make society better for everyone. So, it’s not something that stands alone. I understand what the problem is.

David Wray: Indeed. And one of my one of my good friends, Richard Spencer from the ICAW, which is the Institute of Chartered Accountants for England and Wales, of which I’m also a member, he made a poignant statement on a conversation that he and I were having, a few weeks ago, not very long ago, actually. And his statement was very simple. He said there is no business on a dead planet. So, I again, I think it just reinforced I mean, his statement made it very, very clear that you can’t think about business alone to the exclusion of planet, people, and governance to your point. They they’re all connected. 
 
Nicolaas van Wyk: You mentioned the US and the changes there. It is it’s a real strange phenomenon that we’re observing because it’s, like, 180 degrees different from what we’ve been thinking the world will go into, a much more aggressive type of economic policies that they will be seeking. And I read a quote the other day about the future conflicts won’t be like a cold war type, but it’s going to be about technology, specifically AI, and who controls that technology because it’s a powerful, powerful tool, and then also supply chains. And I think that is very true. Supply chains, that’s what an economy is built on, whether it’s from a payment system to deliveries and harbours and roads and how things are delivered and especially then in what currency they’re going to be paid. 
 
So, we are moving into an interesting period in in history where globalization and integration, was what we everybody got used to for the last, well, 20, 30, 40 years. And now it does seem everybody’s talking about tariffs and locking borders. How do you see the future? And let us close also with that kind of vision of yours, how a CFO can navigate this very difficult circumstances that we’re moving into?

David Wray: It’s a great question, Nicolaas, and I so I wish I had a crystal ball because a crystal ball, I think, would be very helpful now. 
 
But that said, I think the one thing that ICFOA can do is help, the CFOs and their organizations with resiliency. So if there’s one attribute, I think, that we need to develop in all of our finance leaders regardless of what function they sit in, whether it’s the CFO, the controller, planning and reporting, whatever it happens to be, is being resilient because that’s going to be a really important skill, I think, over the next few years anyway. You’re right. I mean, we’re heading into a very unusual and perhaps unusual in our lifetime, certainly, but I’m not sure it’s unusual in history in that there are tensions, geopolitical tensions, that countries are focusing a lot more on national interests and a lot less on everything else. So, they’re very much focusing inward and moving a little bit back towards protectionism, and, hence, the tariffs and things like that. 
 
And I think that it plays well politically because there’s so much disenchantment around the world with respect to fairness, with respect to equality, inclusion, and some of the other things that are happening. And when individuals feel that the world is unfair, funnily enough, they tend to gravitate towards the more aggressive style of, well, we need something to get us out of this situation. And that’s unfortunate because I think, you know, we’ve certainly got several countries that are emerging with a more aggressive tone or a more aggressive approach, and that’s not to the betterment of the world in my view. I think it certainly creates a level of instability, and I think it creates a level of concern. That said, companies can influence to some degree, But, again, what they can do is they can think about resiliency. 
 
They can think about agility. How do we adapt? How do we make sure that we’re responding to things correctly? And, also, to realize that the environment we’re in is a phase. It is not going to stay like this forever. 
 
It never does. Right? Everything is a cycle. Whether the cycle lasts 4 years, 6 years, 8 years, we’ll see, but it is a cycle. And that’s why I think that companies need to be able to adapt to what will change over time because those are the companies that ultimately will be able to thrive, so thinking about how do they, diversify their client base, for example. 
 
So perhaps if they’re doing business and one company in the UK, for example, is currently actively thinking about, does it open a branch in the US if tariffs come into play so that, ultimately, it can do business in the US, notwithstanding tariffs that are imposed? Because then if you’ve got an entity within the country, then, obviously, it becomes a lot less of a concern. But that comes with real operating costs. So, there’s a trade-off that needs to be considered around what to do. And I think that companies just need to go through those evaluations and think through, if this is temporary, what do I do? 
 
If this is longer term and this is more durable, what do I do? So, I think companies that can run scenario analysis and scenario planning and adapt approaches that allow them that kind of flexibility or reflect that kind of agility, I think those are the companies that will do well. And, ultimately, the ICFO alliance can really help by promoting the dialogue, the sharing of best practices, the sharing of ideas within the context of the community around the world because that’s ultimately, you know, how we get the best outcomes. It’s not one way of thinking. It’s when you’ve got multidimensional thinking. 
 
And then sometimes it’s about how you build ideas from different things, not just, one person’s idea. Maybe it’s 3 or 4 that come together and, hey. Look. There’s something we can create from these 4 different ideas, and how amazing would this be? So, I think that’s potentially where we can go. 
 
But I would say it’s not, to me, really focused on human skills. AI absolutely is going to disrupt some things, but the one thing it won’t disrupt are human skills. So, I think the more that, as a community, we focus on developing those human professional soft skills, whatever you want to call them, the more valuable we make our teams. And I think that’s where CFOs have a true responsibility is to promote those kinds of skills because they cannot be replaced by AI and certainly not in our lifetime.

Nicolaas van Wyk: Thank you, David, for that, analysis. 
 
Like I said, we don’t have a crystal ball, but I think you gave a good summary, resilience and agility, and touched on the skill sets needed for the future CFO. And if we also have students listening, then it’s really an exciting career. Not everybody has to go in auditing. David is a good example. And there’s such a myriad of things that you can do and develop into as a CFO and must navigate. 
 
So it’s an adventurous career. It’s a very interesting career with a lot of facets. From our side, David, from the CFO Club, thank you very much for joining us and sharing your insights. I’m sure we’ll have you back on the show for our next session, and let’s see what the future hold.

David Wray: Pleasure. Thank you so much, Nicolaas and happy to always comeback.

Nicolaas van Wyk: Thank you.