Guy Gresham Joins SESAMm Advisory, Bolstering US Footprint
December 11, 2025
•
5 mins read
SESAMm is pleased to welcome Guy Gresham to its Advisory Board. A globally recognized capital-markets strategist and former Group Head of Global Investor Relations Advisory at BNY, Guy brings more than two decades of experience in global financial services, specializing in equity capital markets, investor relations, and sustainability. Originally from New Zealand and now based in New York, he has deep expertise in regulatory compliance, ESG governance, and aligning global standards with business operations. His presence in North America will further strengthen SESAMm’s footprint in the U.S. market at a time of rapidly evolving expectations around sustainability and reputational risk.
"Guy’s experience advising companies across more than 50 countries, combined with his understanding of the North American market, brings a tremendous amount of insight and credibility,” said Sylvain Forté, CEO of SESAMm. “He has a remarkable ability to bridge sustainability, regulation, and capital-markets strategy, and we’re delighted to welcome him to our advisory board.”
During his time leading BNY’s Global Investor Relations Advisory group, Guy oversaw a global team supporting issuers across multiple markets and guided companies through major shifts in regulation, geopolitics, and capital markets expectations. As co-chair of BNY’s enterprise ESG Advisory Council and the Sustainable Client Solutions Working Group, he advised executive management on governance and regulatory requirements, embedding sustainability into core decision-making and risk management.
Today, Guy sits on the advisory committee of Sedex, a leading global supply-chain sustainability data platform, and serves as a non-executive director at Strategy&Ops, an international consultancy focused on sustainability and digital transformation. He holds an MBA from Cornell University, a BA (Hons) in International Relations from Victoria University of Wellington, and is a 2026 Digital Statecraft Fellow at Cambridge University.
“The growing convergence of sustainability, regulation, and technology is reshaping how companies engage with investors and manage risk,” said Guy Gresham. “SESAMm is at the forefront of this transition, using advanced AI to surface insights that were previously inaccessible. I’m delighted to support the team as they scale these capabilities globally.”
We’re thrilled to welcome Guy to SESAMm’s Advisory Board and look forward to working together as we continue advancing AI-powered ESG and reputational risk analysis worldwide, including expanding our partnerships and presence across North America.
SESAMm’s AI Technology Reveals ESG Insights
Discover unparalleled insights into ESG controversies, risks, and opportunities across industries. Learn more about how SESAMm can help you analyze millions of private and public companies using AI-powered text analysis tools.
In recent years, consumers have become increasingly conscious about the impact of their purchases on the environment and society. As a result, many companies have jumped on the bandwagon of sustainability and green initiatives to attract consumers who prioritize ethical and environmentally friendly products. However, not all companies are authentic in their claims and practices, leading to a phenomenon known as greenwashing. In the first article of this two-part series, we gave an in-depth analysis of reputational laundering and greenwashing. In this article, we will explore the prevalence of greenwashing across various industries. We will also study the case of a company practicing greenwashing and a genuinely sustainable company.
Reputational Laundering by Industry
Reputational laundering is a common practice across various industries. Traditionally, the ‘Oil and Gas’ and ‘Financial’ industries have been identified as the main culprits. However, we have recently observed a substantial increase in the frequency of mentions in the ‘Food & Drug Retail’ industry, surpassing all other sectors by a significant margin. To evaluate this trend, we calculated the percentage of reputational laundering mentions in relation to the total number of mentions for each industry.
Reputational laundering over time
We looked at the last three years to find how each industry has evolved. Most industries have remained fairly static within a reasonable range. However, ‘Industrials’ have seen a significant decrease in mentions. Conversely, ‘Oil and Gas’ and ‘Food & Drug Retail’ significantly increased in 2023.
‘Food & Drug Retail’ more than tripled its mentions percentage due to a large number of mislabeled eco-friendly products (Walmart & Kohl’s) and green initiatives claims (Coca-Cola, Unilever, Amazon…).
The ‘Oil and Gas’ industry ranked second, and its recent spike can be associated mainly with greenwashing on actions such as their direct negative impact on the environment and the impact on local communities (TotalEnergies - Uganda & Tanzania). Another example is related to sportswashing with ‘Oil and Gas’ advertising heavily in sports events and even sponsoring sports clubs.
Figure 1: Reputation laundering by industry over time.
When examining the prevalence of reputational risks across sectors, greenwashing is the predominant concern in most industries. This is particularly evident in sectors like Industrials, Oil & Gas, and Financials, where greenwashing mentions are especially prominent. On the other hand, Telecommunications & Social Media stands out as an exception, with the bulk of its mentions skewing towards colorwashing, which encompasses specific practices such as blackwashing and sportswashing (Netflix accused of 'blackwashing' new docu-series Queen Cleopatra by casting black British actress).
Figure 2: Reputational laundering breakdown by industry.
The financial industry's footprint in reputational laundering might not be the most pronounced in terms of direct mentions, but its influence stretches wide via its investment activities in other sectors. This means the ripple effect of the financial sector's actions can be substantially more impactful than those in other industries. Our investigation into this phenomenon included a rigorous examination of the frequency with which financial institutions are cited in discussions of greenwashing. Additionally, we assessed their efforts in driving positive impact initiatives. We scrutinized a group of 144 financial entities, arranging them on a scale from the greatest to the least number of greenwashing mentions in proportion to their overall volume of mentions.
Top financial firms by greenwashing claims
Below, we listed the financial firms with the highest relative volume of greenwashing mentions. Beyond the first two institutions on the list, which are related and had a big scandal in 2022, we can see many very recognizable names, such as Blackrock (investing in fossil fuels), JP Morgan (for fossil fuel investment policies), and HSBC (false advertising green claims) making our top ten list.
Case Study: DWS Group
The DWS Group, previously known as Deutsche Asset Management, found itself in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons in 2022 and 2023. The scandal landed them at the top of our list, a position highlighted by the significant number of mentions they received — a figure that is an order of magnitude higher than that of any other entity on the list.
As a German asset management firm under the umbrella of Deutsche Bank, DWS was embroiled in severe greenwashing allegations. The last two years were marked by high-drama events: starting with greenwashing allegations at the end of 2021, their offices were searched in May 2022, which led to the resignation of the DWS chief in June 2022. The saga concluded with a substantial $25 million fine paid to U.S. regulators in September 2023.
The accompanying chart provides a visual representation of the timeline for these events, contrasting the number of absolute mentions with those specifically related to greenwashing. The alignment in the timing and scale of these mentions with the unfolding events is unmistakable.
Figure 3: DWS Group relative greenwashing mentions.
Best-in-class companies
In our effort to wrap up our study on an optimistic note, it's important to recognize that the heightened scrutiny of greenwashing and its associated initiatives ultimately serves a beneficial role by significantly raising our collective consciousness about crucial ESG issues.
While it's true that numerous companies have come under fire for greenwashing, it's equally important to highlight those that are genuinely advancing initiatives with positive environmental and social repercussions across the globe.
Employing the same method used to scrutinize financial firms implicated in greenwashing, we focused on the same group of 144 companies, honing in on the top 10 that stood out based on normalized mentions of their positive environmental actions.
The findings are quite encouraging: mentions of these positive initiatives dwarf those of negative impacts when viewed as a proportion of total mentions. Brookfield Asset Management (Brookfield) shines as the most notable, garnering almost double the mentions of its closest peer.
Also noteworthy is BlackRock's appearance on this list. Despite its presence on the greenwashing list, BlackRock has made strides in positive efforts, too. The company's initiatives—some counterbalancing the negative—have received more attention for their positive impact than for greenwashing, suggesting a complex but proactive ESG engagement.
Furthermore, companies like EQT, Berkshire Hathaway, and Standard & Poor's have actively engaged in initiatives that drive positive impact, earning them significant—and rightfully so—media coverage.
Figure 4: Brookfield sentiment vs environmental initiatives.
In terms of visibility, these environmental initiatives represent a significant portion of the company’s profile, surpassing 50% of total mentions in September 2022. This highlights the dominant role these actions play in the public discourse surrounding Brookfield.
The company’s polarity(1) — a measure of sentiment in mentions — shows a steady and positive trajectory beginning in late 2021. This trend points to a growing positive reputation and increased positive online discussions regarding the company.
Web Sentiment Analysis: Financial Industry vs. DWS & Brookfield
Figure 5: Sentiment over time.
When assessing the landscape of ESG engagement within the financial sector, we consider the comparative reputations of two key players: the leader in positive impact initiatives against the firm with the highest number of greenwashing mentions. How do they stack up against the broader sentiment within the financial industry?
The finance industry at large grapples with a challenging reputation shaped by various issues, including regulatory shortcomings, perceived corporate greed, opacity, and environmental impacts, among others.
Against this backdrop, we observe that:
DWS: The company's reputation trajectory is on a downward slope compared to the industry average, with the aftereffects of recent controversies culminating in a reputation low as of October 2023.
Brookfield: In contrast, Brookfield's commitment to the environment appears to buoy its reputation, maintaining a consistently positive trend that surpasses the market standard. Notably, from January 2023 onward, there is a discernible uptick in positive sentiment.
Conclusion
While the prevalence of greenwashing poses a considerable challenge within the corporate sphere, our study reveals a silver lining. The intensive scrutiny and debate surrounding environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues have led to heightened awareness and, more importantly, action. Amidst the cacophony of claims, our analysis has found a discernible pattern of positive ESG initiatives overshadowing negative impacts, indicating a shift towards genuine sustainability efforts.
Particularly encouraging is the performance of certain frontrunners like Brookfield Asset Management, which has emerged as a beacon of positive action, outpacing its peers in driving meaningful change. This illustrates the potential for firms to lead by example and underscores the importance of rigorous analysis in distinguishing substantive ESG commitments from superficial ones.
Ultimately, this study underscores the transformative power of informed scrutiny and the pivotal role that advanced analytical tools play in propelling the ESG agenda forward. As the financial community continues to refine its approaches to evaluating ESG metrics, we can remain cautiously optimistic about the journey from mere green-tinted narratives to deeply rooted, impactful corporate practices.
(1) Polarity aggregates positive and negative sentiment (opinions, reviews) on a company. It ranges from -1 to 1. A 0 score means that positive and negative sentiment are equal. Well-regarded brands generally have polarity scores over 0.5.
At SESAMm, we used AI to study billions of articles and analyze greenwashing trends. Download this comprehensive ebook for an in-depth understanding of the evolving landscape of reputational laundering, notably greenwashing, and dive into its trends in the corporate world.
SESAMm’s AI Technology Reveals ESG Insights
Discover unparalleled insights into ESG controversies, risks, and opportunities across industries. Learn more about how SESAMm can help you analyze millions of private and public companies using AI-powered text analysis tools.
SESAMm's ESG data shows FIFA's Controversy Exposure Score has stayed High to Very High since 2020. See why continuous monitoring beats the four-year cycle.
With the 2026 World Cup now underway, FIFA is back in the global spotlight, and its risk profile is once again being narrated in four-year cycles, as though controversy arrives with the tournament and recedes with the closing ceremony. The data points to a different pattern. Across the period from January 2020 to June 2026, the large majority of FIFA's most serious controversies were recorded outside any World Cup window. Tournaments concentrate global attention on FIFA's existing liabilities, but the evidence suggests they do not drive the underlying volume. Many of the substantive events, including court verdicts, regulator rulings, fund decisions, and bid matters, occur in the periods between tournaments.
For investors, sponsors, and anyone screening exposure to football's governing body, this distinction matters. If controversy were cyclical, it could be assessed around the calendar. Because the data indicates it is closer to continuous, it is better suited to ongoing monitoring. To examine this, the analysis below draws on SESAMm's controversy data, which captures and classifies FIFA's reputational, regulatory, and operational controversies.
Context: How FIFA's Structure Shapes Its Risk
Controversy Exposure Over Time
*Unsolicited ratings - produced from public sources, not commissioned by the rated company. For more information, visit here.
It helps to start with how FIFA is organized, because its governance structure has a direct bearing on the type of risk it carries. As a Swiss-law association, FIFA answers to a membership rather than to shareholders or a securities regulator, and its decision-making body, the FIFA Council, is composed of representatives from the regional confederations whose commercial interests the Council also oversees. This means the regulatory functions of sanctioning, eligibility, and integrity sit close to the commercial function of awarding and selling tournaments. Arrangements of this kind tend to produce a steady stream of governance-related questions as part of normal operations, which is consistent with SESAMm’s controversy data.
One useful illustration is procedural rather than criminal. The Blatter and Platini proceedings span the entire time period without reaching a clear resolution, running from a 2020 complaint through a fraud indictment, an acquittal, a prosecutorial appeal, and a second acquittal, before Platini opened a fresh action against FIFA and Infantino in June 2026. As a corruption narrative, the sequence is inconclusive. As a governance observation, it illustrates a broader dynamic in which matters are litigated and re-litigated over long periods, in part because resolution often depends on external courts operating on their own timelines. The result is a long-running procedural footprint rather than discrete, time-bound events.
The CES is an aggregate, entity-level score (0–100) that measures an entity's overall exposure to ESG controversies over time. It's built from individual ESG events and their intensities, synthesizing both event volume and severity into a single trackable figure. The intensity score, by contrast, operates one level down: it's applied at the event level, measuring how severe or important each individual ESG event is on a scale from 1 (least severe) to 5 (most severe). In short, the CES tells you how exposed an entity is overall, while the intensity score tells you how serious each underlying event is.
ESG Risk Over Time
This chart tracks FIFA's ESG controversies per year from 2020 to 2026, stacked by risk pillar. Governance dominates every bar, with social forming a secondary band and environmental barely visible. Volume climbs from a governance-heavy opening year to a clear peak in 2022, then holds at a stable plateau through 2025 before the short 2026 bar. The shape is driven by a handful of major events. The 2020 corruption investigations kept the opening-year baseline elevated and were almost purely governance-related, following a US DOJ indictment unsealed that April, which alleged bribes were paid for the votes that awarded Russia and Qatar the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.
The 2022 Qatar World Cup marked the clear inflection point, drawing sportswashing accusations and pushing total controversies to their peak, while migrant-worker conditions and human-rights coverage around Qatar thickened the social band into a permanent quarter-to-third of each bar from 2022 onward. Rather than reverting, controversies settled into a post-2022 "new normal," plateauing well above the pre-tournament level.
Underneath it all, corruption-and-bribery and legal/investigative exposure account for the bulk of total risk across 2020 to 2026, while environmental risk stays statistically negligible throughout.
ESG Risk by Type
Environmental Risks
Environmental risk accounts for a small share of FIFA's total controversy volume, but that low frequency masks cases of genuine severity. The Swiss Fairness Commission ruled against FIFA's Qatar 2022 carbon-neutrality marketing, turning a greenwashing accusation into a formal regulatory matter still active in June 2026. Related controversies extend the theme, including criticism of the Saudi Aramco and Coca-Cola sponsorships, the cooling and water-use controversies at Qatar, and the animal-welfare outcry over stray-dog culling ahead of Morocco's 2030 hosting.
Beyond these, FIFA has drawn criticism over its marketing and communications, notably branding the 2022 Qatar World Cup as "carbon neutral," and has dealt with fraud and embezzlement, exemplified by the case of former FIFA and CONCACAF official Chuck Blazer. Issues tied to its board and senior management leadership round out the picture, though the overall pattern is one of an organization reacting to the weight of its legal and ethical past rather than getting ahead of it.
As the breakdown above shows, the overwhelming majority of FIFA's screened ESG events fall into the low-risk tier (1,294, or 88.1%), with 165 (11.2%) on the watchlist and 9 (0.6%) classified as Violator, the highest-risk tier under SESAMm's UN Global Compact screening. That tier is assigned only where there is clear evidence of a breach, such as formal sanctions, court findings, or regulatory condemnations, rather than unresolved allegations. For investors with SFDR Article 8 or 9 obligations, or internal exclusion policies tied to UNGC compliance, a Violator flag on a core holding or counterparty is a material signal rather than a monitoring note, which is why the profile is best read as governance-led: the nine Violator events reflect adjudicated breaches concentrated in FIFA's governance history, not the live controversies surrounding the current tournament.
The composition that emerges is a governance core of long-running legal cases, a Qatar-rooted social overlay that has proven durable, and a small but genuinely high-severity environmental tail now being contested through formal channels.
Both lines explode together, but unevenly: absolute volume roughly doubles while the relative share more than quadruples, briefly making Qatar roughly one in seven of all FIFA-related items, because nearly every controversy fires at once. The spike packs in wider labor abuses, and the jailing of whistleblower Abdullah Ibhais; the OneLove armband ban and Qatar's criminalization of same-sex relations and the broader sportswashing and carbon-neutral greenwashing charges; and the unresolved bribery allegations over the 2010 hosting vote. On its own, this acute cluster would suggest a controversy that lives and dies with the tournament.
Phase 3: Off-Season Accumulation (2023–2026)
This is where the two lines part ways, and the accumulation shows itself. After the tournament, the relative share deflates sharply in 2023, the acute spike clearing, but it never returns to baseline; instead, it grinds steadily upward every subsequent year, ending in 2026 at roughly four-and-a-half times its pre-tournament level. Over the same stretch, the absolute volume collapses, from 1.43M in 2023 to around 448K in 2026, under a fifth of the 2022 peak. The two movements together are the key finding: even as total FIFA coverage shrank dramatically, the Qatar migrant-worker case captured a larger and larger share of what remained. Driving that residual are post-tournament findings: The non-payment of the migrant workers during the 2022 World Cup, the campaign for a migrant-worker compensation and remedy fund, and Amnesty's continued push for FIFA to fund remediation.A storyline that merely echoes the event would fade with the falling volume; one that accumulates does the opposite. The controversy is no longer powered by the match calendar but by its own momentum.
The Case Underneath
Underneath that residual sits the report's single heaviest case: the human-rights strand of 135 events running from 2020 to 2026, the longest-running and most densely populated case in the dataset. What stops it fading is that each turn of the hosting cycle reactivates it: the 2026 uptick to 6.49%, the highest reading outside the tournament year itself, coincides with the 2026 World Cup now underway in North America, which revives retrospective scrutiny of Qatar, and the emerging human-rights questions around Saudi Arabia's 2034 tournament, which carries the same migrant-labour lens straight to the next host. The case is not simply failing to fade; it is being actively topped up by each new host, which is why the social exposure reads as structural rather than event-bound.
Key Takeaways
Taken together, the data describes a profile that is primarily governance-related, with the most severe and persistent cases concerning legal exposure, corruption, and bribery, supported by a durable Qatar-rooted social overlay and a small but high-severity environmental tail. All three pillars reach maximum case intensity, so severity is not confined to any single dimension.
The most consistent feature is persistence. FIFA's Controversy Exposure Score has remained in the High-to-Very-High band throughout the period and sits at 99 today. The largest cases run continuously from 2020 to 2026, and a significant share of binding decisions occur outside tournament windows. None of this reduces the significance of the World Cup, which clearly concentrates attention and scrutiny. But the underlying controversy is produced across the quarters between tournaments, and several of FIFA's most consequential outcomes are set during lower-attention periods. For those screening FIFA, the practical implication is that continuous monitoring suits this profile better than event-triggered review, because much of the relevant activity occurs between tournaments rather than during them.
The data suggests that for an entity like FIFA, a four-year review cycle misses most of what matters. Request a demo to see how SESAMm supports the kind of ongoing monitoring this profile requires.
*The Controversy Exposure Score (CES) is a continuous score from 0 to 100 measuring a company's exposure to ESG controversies over time, based on the severity of incidents and their media volume. This is an unsolicited rating: it is not commissioned by the rated company. The company is notified before its score is first issued, does not take part in the rating, and SESAMm has no access to its management or non-public documents. Ratings are produced only from public and licensed sources. The methodology is available here.
Paris, September 16th, 2025 – Clarity AI and SESAMm, two pioneers in AI-driven sustainability and risk analysis, today announced a partnership to enhance ESG controversy monitoring in private markets, giving investors unprecedented insights into millions of non-listed companies.
Private markets account for ~$22 trillion in assets under management (AUM), but remain significantly less transparent than listed firms when it comes to sustainability and reputational risks. By combining Clarity AI’s end-to-end sustainability analysis platform with SESAMm’s advanced controversy detection, investors will gain broader, deeper insights into companies that have historically been hard to assess. This lack of visibility creates added challenges for asset managers and financial institutions, particularly as they work to comply with regulations such as SFDR and CSRD.
Through the partnership, Clarity AI’s comprehensive coverage of both public and private companies will be enriched by SESAMm’s real-time controversy data on millions of additional private entities. SESAMm’s multilingual large language models analyze content from over 4 million sources in 100+ languages, surfacing potential red flags such as human rights violations, corruption, and environmental breaches, even in hard-to-assess, non-listed firms.
“SESAMm's technology leads the industry in detecting ESG controversies within private companies. Through our partnership with Clarity AI, we are now bringing this powerful capability directly to investors globally, ensuring they have a full picture of the risk in these markets,” said Sylvain Forté, CEO and co-founder of SESAMm.
“At Clarity AI, our mission is to bring transparency to sustainability, wherever capital flows,” said Daniel González, Global Partnership Director at Clarity AI. “This partnership is a breakthrough for private markets, where opacity has long hindered investors’ ability to monitor ESG risks. By combining SESAMm’s controversy detection with Clarity AI’s end-to-end sustainability platform, we are giving investors the most comprehensive view of both public and private companies. That means stronger due diligence, faster monitoring, and greater confidence in meeting evolving regulatory demands, all in one place.”
This collaboration reinforces Clarity AI's offering for private markets, now including environmental metric estimations for 2.3 million non-listed companies. Together, both firms are taking a significant step toward closing the information gap between public and private markets, equipping asset managers, private equity firms, and financial institutions with actionable insights to better understand reputational and sustainability risks, while supporting due diligence, risk monitoring, and regulatory compliance.
About Clarity AI
Clarity AI is the leading sustainability technology company, delivering data-driven insights to investors, companies, governments, and consumers. Its AI-powered platform offers flexible access to advanced analytics, supporting use cases from portfolio management and research to regulatory reporting, strategic planning, and consumer applications. Trusted by clients managing over $70 trillion in assets, Clarity AI also powers sustainability intelligence through integrations into leading investment platforms such as BlackRock Aladdin, SimCorp or Caceis. The company operates globally, backed by top-tier minority investors including BlackRock, Softbank, and Visa.
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 www.sesamm.com.
SESAMm’s AI Technology Reveals ESG Insights
Discover unparalleled insights into ESG controversies, risks, and opportunities across industries. Learn more about how SESAMm can help you analyze millions of private and public companies using AI-powered text analysis tools.
Stay ahead with the latest in ESG and AI intelligence
Join our mailing list to receive new reports, event invites, and updates from SESAMm directly to your inbox.
.avif)
.png)