Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. Watch the video for a better view of graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes the presenter might be referring to in context.

Intro to SESAMm

Thank you very much, Greg. Thank you, everyone, for listening to this presentation. I’m Sylvain. I’m CEO and co-founder of SESAMm. SESAMm is an AI company. We extract billions of articles and messages from the web in order to identify critical insights related to financial institutions and corporates. We’re a team of close to a hundred people. And what we aim to show you today is our new product that helps financial institutions and corporates identify ESG controversies in the form of alerts on all of their investments, on all of their clients, and all of their suppliers.

So there are more than 23 million companies in the world right now. These companies are your investments, your suppliers, your clients, and no one is actually tracking them. Most of these companies are never tracked day to day. SESAMm’s solution aims at automatically identifying controversies on these companies and finding the critical information that you’re missing.

See a dashboard example

So let’s take a quick example first. Here we have dashboards where we analyze a company called Wirecard. Wirecard is a fintech company—German—that went bankrupt a few years ago due to a two billion fraud scandal. That company was heavily embedded into the financial sector, working with a lot of banks, a lot of corporates worldwide.

On our dashboards, we can immediately identify all of the key controversies and all of the key risks on the companies. And we have a score called a virality score that helps assess the severity of each ESG event so as to understand whether that company should be excluded from your list of suppliers, for example, or even discussed as a client.

SESAMm solution benefits

There are key benefits to providing this information and to the way that this product is brought to the market. First, SESAMm covers more companies than anyone else. We cover close to five million firms, whereas most ESG providers have coverage limited to 50,000 firms in total. In addition to that, we’re able to detect controversies in real time and generate daily alerts where normally a bank, for example, would have to go through that process manually and update it just a few times a year instead of receiving that live information.

In addition to that, as you can see on the demo here, we have information for more than 14 years of data. So anytime you onboard a new supplier, anytime you check for information—ESG information, on a new client, or on an investment—you’ll automatically be able to go back in history and understand whether that company was exposed to issues in the past.

Trusted by major financial institutions

SESAMm solutions are already adopted by major banks such as Raiffeisen or Nomura, for example, in this industry, major private equity firms such as Carlyle. And what’s interesting in this solution is that we’re seeing specific interests from commercial banks that are missing the solution in order to track ESG risk on their suppliers and their clients. And it makes sense. Most of these suppliers and clients are small firms, local firms that no one else is going to track. And AI is enabling us to automate the process of monitoring these firms and making sense of that data in real time.

SESAMm's solution in action

So now, let’s go to the second part of the demo. We want to take an actual life example. So let’s take a company like Twilio, for example. So you may know Twilio communications, API, messaging services, phone services, and the like. This company is a typical provider of banks or of financial institutions or any other corporates in the world.

So you see on the left, we immediately identify all of the information related to Twilio. And we can rank this based on negative sentiment so as to understand what are the key critical topics that I should care about and that I should evaluate before actually working with Twilio or in the context of already working with Twilio. We go through that process by handling more than 20 billion articles and messages from more than four million sources worldwide. So that’s an insanely large amount of information.

And on Twilio—say Twilio is one of your suppliers or one of your clients—we immediately identify a large controversy related to a data breach and cybersecurity issue, and we identified both in news but also in some of the specialized cybersecurity websites. In addition to that, we can go in even more granularity and look transparently at the content themselves, read the contents from the platform, and not just rely on a numeric rate saying that “Hey! This company is problematic.” We can actually read the underlying content and understand how the controversy emerged.

SESAMm solution benefits

So the key benefits and the real advantages of that solution is getting information immediately. You don’t have to wait for a due diligence for someone to check for someone to send a questionnaire to the company. You just type in the name, get the information in a few seconds wherever the company is, and however local that company is. It could be the most obscure company. And as you can see our system also covers many different languages, including Asian languages that are monitored automatically.

The second part is that we have access to millions of sources, including very industry-specific sources. I was mentioning cyberthreats. We also have access to NGO websites that identify these types of ESG issues in real time.

So this is really the information that is aimed at helping you monitor controversies and ESG events in just one place on any number of companies, public and private, whether they are your suppliers, your clients, or your investments. You can make sense of that data in real time using AI.

Presentation summary

I’ll finish this presentation a bit early, and we’ll actually bring the point to three calls to action. The first one is, first, please come to our booth. We’re actually on the left of the exhibit hall right when you come in. The second one is, please visit our website. It’s spelled SESAMm, sesamm.com, and you can get a free trial from the website. And finally, come talk to our amazing team with Dave and the rest of our team at our booth. And please ask us for a free POC—whether you’re a bank, an asset manager, or a fintech company—and help us help you track all of the ESG controversies on millions of companies.

Thank you very much.

Reach out to SESAMm

TextReveal’s web data analysis of over five million public and private companies is essential for keeping tabs on ESG investment risks. For example, ESG Alerts provides a better way to research and monitor your investment portfolio. To learn more about how you can analyze web data or to request a demo, reach out to one of our representatives.

SESAMm, a leading provider of AI-powered ESG and reputational risk insights, is pleased to announce that Paine Schwartz Partners, the largest private equity firm dedicated to sustainable food chain investing, has selected SESAMm’s platform to enhance its ESG due diligence and portfolio monitoring processes.

Paine Schwartz Partners manages over $6 billion in assets and invests globally across the food and agribusiness value chain, pursuing predominantly buyout investments, with a smaller allocation to growth companies. With a strong, long-standing commitment to sustainable investing in the food chain, Paine Schwartz integrates environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations at every stage of its investment process, from initial screening to active portfolio management.

As part of its investment process, Paine Schwartz Partners will leverage SESAMm’s platform to enhance its ESG risk screening, due diligence, and supplier and portfolio monitoring.

SESAMm’s platform provides real-time visibility into ESG and reputational risks across millions of public and private companies worldwide. The platform leverages multilingual large language models to analyze content from over 4 million sources in 100+ languages, enabling rapid first-gate screening, continuous monitoring of portfolio companies and their supply chains, and early detection of potential red flags, all while providing fully auditable data.

Among the platform’s capabilities, Paine Schwartz Partners will make use of SESAMm’s AI Reports, a suite of AI-generated reports covering ESG Assessment, Legal, and Governance Screening, available directly within the platform. These reports make it possible to rapidly screen companies for ESG and reputational risks even where direct access to company data is limited, for example, when evaluating whether to pursue a smaller or minority investment, or before launching a full due diligence process. The reports will also help the firm efficiently screen key suppliers across its portfolio, a particularly valuable capability given the firm’s focus on the food and agribusiness value chain.

‍

About Paine Schwartz Partners

Paine Schwartz Partners is the largest private equity firm dedicated to sustainable food chain investing, with ~$6.5 billion of AUM and over 20 years of experience. The firm invests across specific segments of the food and agribusiness value chain, with a focus on two core investment themes: productivity and sustainability and health and wellness. Through its proactive, thesis-driven approach, the firm targets value-added and differentiated companies and makes primarily control buyout investments, with a smaller allocation to growth companies. Learn more at www.paineschwartz.com.

‍

About SESAMm

SESAMm is a global leader in controversy data, leveraging advanced large language models and generative AI to uncover ESG, reputational, and supplier risks in seconds. Our AI-powered platform surfaces real-time insights, even in low-disclosure markets, on millions of companies and infrastructure projects, supporting more informed decisions, enhanced due diligence, and regulatory alignment at scale. We work with leading firms, including Carlyle, Warburg, Natixis, RBI, Sustainable Fitch, Oddo, and others. SESAMm has raised $50M from renowned investors and operates across four continents. Learn more at sesamm.com

An analysis of over 250,000 infrastructure projects reveals that the sector most often filed under "clean energy" carries the heaviest environmental and social controversy footprint of any asset type assessed.

In the taxonomy of energy infrastructure, hydropower occupies a comfortable position. It is renewable, dispatchable, and long-lived, and it enters transition frameworks, green bond eligibility criteria, and net-zero roadmaps with minimal friction. Where coal is a legacy liability to be managed down and nuclear invites a specialized debate, hydropower is largely treated as settled. What these projects have actually done does not support that treatment.

Belo Monte, an 11,233 MW complex on the Xingu River in Pará, Brazil, is the sharpest test of the point, because it was built to answer this exact objection. Approved after decades of opposition to a far larger design, it was engineered as a run-of-river plant to minimize flooding, and its reservoirs cover 478 km², of which 274 km² was already river channel at high water, a 61% reduction compared with the 1980s proposal, according to the operator's own regulatory filing. The mitigation was designed from the start, and everything that follows happened regardless.

Biodiversity: the cost of a physical footprint

Environmental controversy across infrastructure concentrates on industrial accidents, water pollution, and biodiversity, and hydropower leads the third, outright, because dams require the permanent conversion of river systems and the land around them. Mexico's Federal Electricity Commission won environmental approval in September 2014 for the Las Cruces dam on the San Pedro Mezquital, upstream of Marismas Nacionales, a Ramsar-protected wetland, even though the project's own impact statement conceded that the damage to Indigenous ceremonial sites could not be mitigated. Along the Mekong River, river health and fish populations fell as dam construction spread through the basin. In Brazil, the Doce River carried a mass release of toxic material after an upstream failure. Elsewhere, the record includes violations of the Endangered Species Act and documented disruption to rainfall patterns.

At Belo Monte, the consequences have been measured rather than projected. The plant diverts water into a canal that bypasses a 130-kilometer stretch of the Xingu known as the Volta Grande, which has received less than 30% of its natural annual discharge since 2019, and some 86% of the stretch's seasonally flooded vegetation, 30,748 of 35,600 hectares, can no longer be inundated at all. The gap lies in the regulator's own file: IBAMA's technical staff called for 10,900 cubic meters per second in February, the historic peak month, compared with the 1,600 that the operating regime actually releases. Seven years of underwater video survey data published in Scientific Reports recorded total fish species richness falling from 62 to a post-operation average of 51, with the steepest losses near the dam and in the rocky rapids, which hold roughly 2.6 times as many species as sandy reaches. The zebra pleco, whose entire known range lies inside the dewatered stretch, now sits on Brazil's national list of threatened species as critically endangered.

None of this is an accident or a failure of operation. It is a structural consequence of the asset. A well-run dam still floods a valley, and a dam engineered specifically not to flood one still dewater the river below it.

When engineering fails: hydropower's physical risk profile

Coal mining leads infrastructure on industrial accidents, where the record is dominated by human tragedy and safety negligence: explosions, collapses, fires, and repeated, incremental failures. Hydropower ranks second, but its accidents take a different form, because in this sector, industrial failure means catastrophic engineering failure at scale. The record includes pipe ruptures causing severe land erosion, oil leaks, and dam collapses that killed and displaced people across whole regions, while PG&E's settlement over damages to the Middle Fork American River Hydroelectric Project and the litigation still running in Brazil after dam collapses give a sense of the exposure a single event can generate. For anyone underwriting these assets, the distinction is financial as much as physical: a coal mine's safety record is a rising cost curve, while a dam's structural integrity is a low-probability, near-unbounded loss.

At Belo Monte, that exposure has so far been financial. The project was budgeted at R$28.9 billion when Brazil's development bank approved a then-record R$22.5 billion loan in November 2012, and by late 2017, actual investment had reached R$38.6 billion, roughly 34% over. The operator owed R$28.3 billion to lenders and debenture holders at the end of 2024. Aliança Norte Energia Participações, the Vale and Cemig vehicle holding a stake in the project, discloses a possible loss of R$3.05 billion from a single construction-delay claim and describes the operator's liquidity as its principal point of attention and a source of investor alert. Neoenergia wrote off its own 10% holding by R$482 million in the fourth quarter of 2021.

The physical risk has been closer than the absence of a collapse suggests. In October 2019, the operator wrote to the national water regulator declaring an emergency, because reservoir levels had fallen far enough to expose an unprotected section of the Pimental dam's earthfill base to wind-driven wave erosion and, in the company's own words, structural damage. It cut outflow below the level agreed with the environmental regulator to protect the structure, and the letter surfaced only through investigative reporting.

Beyond the environment: displacement, water, and chronic corruption

Right to property

Hydropower ranks first among infrastructure sectors for property disputes, a direct function of the footprint a dam and reservoir require. The record shows land seizures, forced displacement, compensation that arrives short or not at all, communities never consulted before ground was broken, and blasting that cracked the foundations of nearby homes. Those affected are frequently the least equipped to hold an operator to account.

Fifteen years after Belo Monte broke ground there is still no audited count of who lost their homes. Estimates run from 20,000 to 40,000 depending on the definition used, against the operator's account of rehousing some 6,000 urban families. Landowners say expropriations are priced at unadjusted 2013 values while the project's own construction boom inflated the market, and as of 2025 none of the land required for the riverine resettlement program had been bought. A petition filed with the Inter-American Commission in 2011 still has no ruling.

Community health and safety

Hydropower sits alongside coal and nuclear as a leading source of community health disputes, but it arrives by a different route. Coal delivers PM2.5, nuclear delivers radioactive anxiety, and hydropower delivers water mismanagement: overconsumption that strips farmers of a livelihood, contaminated water reaching local crops. The grievance is agricultural rather than industrial, which widens the affected population considerably.

On the Volta Grande, catch per fisher fell from 11.1 kilograms a day between 2001 and 2008 to 4.53 kilograms between 2020 and 2023. A randomized household survey found 38.5% of residents in Belo Monte's resettlement neighborhoods living with moderate or severe food insecurity, against 28.3% across the surrounding city. In June 2026, federal prosecutors sought as interim relief for 635 families along the reduced-flow stretch the emergency delivery of three and a half to five liters of drinking water per person per day.

Corruption and bribery

Corruption and bribery accounts for close to 30% of governance controversy across infrastructure. What separates hydropower is the pattern. In airports, nuclear, and coal, corruption surfaces as discrete scandals: a probe opens, executives are charged, attention fades. In hydropower it keeps returning, tied repeatedly to falsified records and payments to local officials to secure land and water rights. Isolated scandals point to isolated actors. A pattern that recurs points to how these projects get permitted.

Brazilian prosecutors alleged that Belo Monte's construction contracts carried bribes worth 1% of their value, and three contractors admitted cartel conduct and kickbacks under leniency agreements that carried immunity. Everything after that was procedural closure rather than a finding of liability: the principal defendants were acquitted and the acquittal upheld on appeal in 2024, the competition authority archived its bid-rigging case in 2025, and no individual has been convicted in connection with the project. An investor screening for enforcement outcomes would have found a closed file. The costs landed elsewhere, in permitting delay, financing conditions, and a minority stake that has been for sale since 2022 without a buyer.

Hydropower's risk concentration: what this means

Hydropower's classification as clean energy is accurate on the metric it was designed to measure, because generation is low-carbon. But carbon intensity is one dimension of sustainability, and it is not the dimension that produces operational friction, legal exposure, or the loss of a social license.

What drew sustained opposition to these projects was water rights, displaced communities, cracked foundations, converted wetlands, and permits secured through local payments. None of it appears in a carbon accounting framework.

For investors, insurers, and lenders seeking transition-aligned infrastructure exposure, that is a material blind spot: an asset class that screens well on the primary criterion while carrying the heaviest social burden in the dataset, and carrying it on behalf of people who have no employment relationship with it. Belo Monte was engineered to avoid precisely that outcome and produced it regardless, which suggests the exposure is not a function of how a dam is built but of what a dam is.

The label is not wrong. It is simply measuring something other than risk.

‍