What Does “Sustainability” Mean to Manufacturers? Ingersoll Rand Helps to Explain Through Operations & Products

One of the long-term success stories in U.S. manufacturing is that of Ingersoll Rand, with history dating back to the 1870s as the Industrial Revolution gained great momentum in North America.

The company’s products were needed by other industrial revolution companies (such as compressors), by mining companies (rock drills), and in various elements (locks and more) of the b-to-b market.  When the Panama Canal was being built by the U.S., Ingersoll Rand drills were on the job. 

Over the decades numerous industrial companies were acquired, with technologies and products added – including such well-known names as Clark Equipment Company, Trane, Thermo King, Dresser-Rand, Harrow Industries, and others. In 2006 the company celebrated its 100th anniversary of listing on the New York Stock Exchange.

Today the company’s products are used in business and residential heating and air conditioning systems (HVAC), in the food industry, on golf courses (the familiar Club Cars), in temperature control (for transport), as well as the company’s plants turning out power tools, control systems and other equipment (there are 51 plants worldwide).

In 2014 at the UN Climate Summit the company announced its Global Climate Commitment to reduce GhGs from products and operations by 2030.  So – how is Ingersoll Rand doing today? 

Today’s Top Story is a Forbes interview with Rasha Hasaneen, VP-Product Management Excellence and Innovation (before joining the company she was at General Electric. The interview is authored by Joan Michelson, a ForbesWomen contributor) who talks with Rasha about “process” as well as products. 

Ingersoll Rand has “a holistic view of sustainable innovation”, helping the company to find common ground with customers, partners and potential recruits.  Keys to innovating with a “core value of sustainability” including (1) anticipating customers’ unstated needs; (2) performance comes first with sustainability a close second; (3) the focus is primarily on product portfolios; (4) the company is constantly innovating; (5) data helps make the business case for understanding the customers’ industries; (6) use the organization’s unique “language” to get support for innovation.

These “6 tips” explain, says Rasha Hasaneen, comprise the Ingersoll Rand approach to innovation.  The challenges to address in the era of global warming with record heat across the U.S. include design and production of HVAC systems (heating, ventilation, A/C) which account for half of the energy consumption in U.S. homes and 39% of commercial buildings.

The company explains “sustainability”:  At Ingersoll Rand, we integrate sustainability into the anatomy of how we help our customers success and how we run our operations.  There’s good information on the firm’s 2030 Sustainability Commitment and the challenges the company, customers and society faces here.

We note here that the two aspects of “sustainable” definitions used today in industry are involved: developing sustainable, long-term products for customers (such as innovative HVAC systems) and making those products sustainability — and to be sustainable and responsible as well in the language of ESG.

Note:  The company’s headquarters was for a long time in New York City, moving to neighboring New Jersey in the 1970s and then on to Davidson, North Carolina.  The company is now incorporated in Dublin, Ireland (that’s a clear sign for us of the impact of globalization of what we formerly considered to be our “national” businesses!).

Top Story

6 Tips For Driving Sustainable Manufacturing From Ingersoll Rand
(Tuesday – July 16, 2019) Source: Forbes – As record heats spread across the U.S. (and the globe), air conditioning systems and the power systems they depend upon are getting a workout. These HVAC systems – heating, cooling and ventilation – are used 24/7 “account for…

About Those Assembled “Best Of” Lists of Companies – What Lessons Are There For The Managers Of Other Firms…Not On The List Of The Chosen?

There are a number of “best of” lists that corporate managers and investment professionals scour to see what companies are judged to be doing well (by the list makers)…whether they be industry peers & competitors, or possible acquisitions or partners, and for investors, whether the listed firms might be the right choices for investment portfolios.

One annual list that we do follow is the one produced by Corporate Knights – the “Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations”, published for the 15th year in 2019.  This list begins with around 7,500 possible inclusions in the top 100, all firms generating $1 billion or more in revenues.  Analysts devote 5,000 hours scouring almost 4 million data points to narrow the field to the chosen 100.

Examining the results, Holly Johnson of The CEO Magazine shared her perspectives with her readers.  There were top takeaways she learned from examining the work of Corporate Knights analysts:

  1. The top companies “live longer” (average age for the top 10 was 87 years!).
  2. They are better governed than peers, with lower CEO-to-worker pay ratio. They pay more in taxes.
  3. They’re “greener,” generating more revenues from clean (positive green or social impact) goods and services.
  4. More women are found in their ranks, and in the board room; there’s bound to be found a link between exec compensation and sustainability measures.
  5. Revenue is “cleaner” – generated through sustainable products. The Top Company is Chr. Hansen, generating 80% of revenues from development of natural solutions for food preservation and crop protection, as well as alternatives to using antibiotics for food animals.
  6. Investors are happier with these firms. 

You can find the details from each of these findings in our Top Story. There’s a link to the Top 100 Corporate Knights list in The CEO Magazine post.

The company names you’ll find in the Top 10 of the Top 100 firms include Prologis (USA); GlaxoSmithKline Plc (UK); Banco do Brasil S.A. (Brazil); Taiwan Semiconductor (Taiwan).

Author Holly Johnson is staff writer and digital producer with The CEO Magazine, in Australia, where “she now delves into the world of leading business executives.”  The magazine is Australia’s leading business publication.

Top Story

Green leaders: The world’s most sustainable companies in 2019
(Tuesday – July 02, 2019) Source: CEO Magazine – According to Corporate Knights’ list of the 2019 Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations, it encompasses carbon and waste reduction, gender equality in leadership and even revenues derived from clean products. 

Do Consumer Favor Sustainable Brands for Their Products and Services Needs? NYU Stern School Research Dives Deep into the Data For Answers

by Hank Boerner – Chair and Chief Strategist, G&A Institute

Many people in consumer marketing are wondering about consumer preferences for “sustainable” products! In our weekly newsletter the G&A Institute team offers media and experts’ shared perspectives on various issues and matters related to corporate sustainability, responsibility; and, sustainable, responsible and impact investing.

In recent months the content shared frequently has focused on trends in the consumer market — to help answer the question of whether or not consumers reacting to brand-facing companies positioning themselves as sustainability leaders.

Is this type of brand marketing a successful strategy?  Worth the effort? 

So the important question in all of this “wondering” is: Are consumers now favoring sustainable or green (or pick your term of definition) for their products & services at retail? 

In our ongoing monitoring of news, feature and research results — such as for the fashion and footwear industries, the auto industry, food & beverages, and certain other categories — the results tell us brand leaders are now often introducing sustainable products alongside their usual cash cows. We included several items for you in this week’s newsletter along these lines. This was our top story:

Writing in the Harvard Business Review, Tensie Whelan, professor at New York University Stern School of Business, and leader of the NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business, and Randi Kronthal-Sacco, director of Corporate Outreach for the Center (and formerly with Johnson & Johnson) describe the results of their recent in-depth research project. 

This research centered on trying to answer the question — do U.S. consumers actually purchase sustainably marketed products?  (Spoiler alert: yes – you must read the HBR article to find out more.) 

Whelan and Kronthal-Sacco used volumes of data sets from bar scan codes at retail for food, drug, dollar, and mass merchandisers, looking at 36 categories and 71,000+ SKUs, accounting for 40% of consumer products goods (CPG) sales over a 5-year period.

So, what did they find to be the largest share of sustainability-marketed products? 

Almost $1-in-$5 purchases at retail are for toilet tissue, facial tissue (think: forest products); milk, yogurt (the yield of countless dairy farmers); coffee (lots of attention on the global coffee-growing belt circling the Earth, and worker conditions therein); salty snacks (really?); and bottled juices (you’ll notice that Coke and Pepsi and other beverage marketers are advertising their shift away from sugary drinks). 

At the bottom of market share:  laundry care, floor cleaners and chocolate candy (accounting for a 5% share).

Say Tensie and Randi:  Pay attention, marketers and those all along the retail value chain, from grower field and factory floor to shelf space.  Consumers are voting with their dollars, for sustainable and against un-sustainable brands. 

Winners in the corporate sector include PepsiCo and Unilever; laggards include Kraft Heinz. (For the leader, Unilever:  think of the company’s sustainable labels like Seventh Generation, Sundial Brands and Pukka Herbs.)

And we are seeing in the many stories we bring you each week about consumers and sustainability, the future for sustainable CPG at retail is looking bright – look at the apparel industry.for examples  The agora is alive and well with many more sustainably-branded products on the shelves.  That’s the good news for sustainability professionals.

The NYU researchers used data from IRi (the research house for CGP, retail and health and beauty – information at: https://www.iriworldwide.com/en-US/Insights)

Congratulations to our colleagues Tensie Whelan and Randi Kronthal-Sacco at NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business for sharing their insights and perspectives.

This Week’s Top Story

Research: Actually, Consumers Do Buy Sustainable Products
(Thursday – June 20, 2019) Source: Harvard Business Review – NYU Stern’s Center for Sustainable Business just completed extensive research into U.S. consumers’ actual purchasing of consumer packaged goods (CPG), using data contributed by IRI, and found that 50% of CPG growth from 2013 to… 

In the Skies Overhead – Global Airline Passenger Volume Set to Double Over Next Two Decades. What Could the Environmental Impact of More Air Travel Be?

by Hank Boerner – Chair and Chief Strategist, G&A Institute

Once upon a time in the early days of jet travel, business travelers accounted for three-quarters or more of the total passenger business of the major U.S. airlines (known as “trunk” carriers back in the day).  Fares were long set by Federal regulation and family-friendly, tourista-friendly fare packages were scarce or non-existent.  Airlines relied on the “have-to-travel-for-business” crowd. At full fare (regulated until the late-1970s).

As the U.S. transport regulations were significantly relaxed (scheduled carriers through Federal “de-regulation” in 1979), the number of U.S. airlines soared from 75 or so to 400 companies…and then began to steadily shrink as carriers merged or went out of business. But passenger travel continued to grow.

Consider:  The Federal Aviation Administration reports 2.7 million passengers move across 29 million miles of controlled airspace on 44,000 flights within the U.S. each day! (See Air Traffic by the Numbers for full details): https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/media/Air_Traffic_by_the_Numbers_2019.pdf

IATA reports four billion annual passengers traveled on a global basis between 20,000 “city pairs”, doubling the global 1995 city pairs available to fliers (the airport centers) in 2017. Passenger traffic was heaviest in Asia-Pacific (more than one-third of the total); Europe and North America each had a quarter of the total number of passengers.  More information for you at: https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2018-09-06-01.aspx

In response to this steady growth in passenger demand, as set fares were de-regulated airlines and seat price points steadily fell, airlines developed a bewildering array of fare offerings (“stay overnight on Saturday” etc).  And those reduced fares helped to bring many more non-business fliers to the American skies.  

Outside of the U.S., what were once “national flag carriers” (like British Airways, Air France, KLM, Al Italia (up for sale to private sector) and many others owned by governments) are now private sector companies — and these long-established carriers and their newer competitors are similarly filling their planes through offer of attractive fares and generous “packages” for retail customers, and connecting business and tourism fliers with many more cities.

And so – as author Stephan Rice points out in his Forbes commentary – IATA, the industry’s International Air Transport Association — sees the global commercial airline passenger business doubling over the next 20 years. 

More flying customers means more passenger airliners will be needed (with much more fuel consumed), more airports needed to accommodate the “to and from” of air travelers (or airports will have to be expanded and upgraded) …and all this means more pollution

Passengers are now becoming more aware of the impact of air transport on the environment and demanding more sustainable practices.  And they are willing to pay for it, some surveys show.

As air travel volume builds, what can be done to reduce the impact of air travel on the global environment? 

Dr. Rice suggests airports can be re-designed to be more sustainable (he cites enhancements at SFO International and Boston Logan as U.S. examples). Indira Ghandi International in Delhi has the first Leadership LEED Gold certificate.

Airlines could use biofuels; KLM had a biofuels test flight from Amsterdam to Paris; Honeywell arranged a flight over the Atlantic using petro-based fuel and camelina (a derivative of a flowering Mediterranean plant!); Singapore is using biofuels over the Pacific.

A 2017 survey of 700+ consumers showed that passengers were willing to pay an additional fee (up to 13% more) for a flight using biofuels — “…a portion of consumers value green initiatives and appear willing to contribute financially to support it…”

The U.S. carriers’ trade organization is “Airlines for America”; it promotes the “A4A’s Climate Change Commitment” for member airlines and is part of a worldwide aviation coalition committed to a global framework on aviation and climate change with emissions target goals. (The “Aspirational goal” is 50% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2050 relative to 2005 levels.)
Information at: http://airlines.org/a4as-climate-change-commitment/

IATA – the airline industry’s global trade association – has set three targets and four pillars to mitigate CO2 emissions from air transport. Information and fact sheets are available at: https://www.iata.org/policy/environment/Pages/climate-change.aspx

Author Rice describes the results of additional consumer surveys on the topic in his Forbes commentary.  He concludes:  “It is clear that the public wants sustainable aviation…and are willing to pay at least some costs for this. Some airlines and manufacturers are taking the lead, but the rest of aviation need to follow very quickly or get left behind.”  Read the details in his commentary, which is this week’s Top Story for you.

Stephen Rice is a professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and received his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois.

Hank Boerner personal note: I spent most of the first two decades of my career in the air transport industry. After my time as an aviation business journalist I was the first “corporate citizenship” manager of American Airlines and later, senior advisor to Royal Jordanian Airlines, then the fastest-growing airline in the world (for two years). In the 1970s, I served as organizer and executive director of the two “MECACON” conferences (Middle East Civil Aviation). On September 11, 2001 I was on duty again, with our team, serving my client, American Airlines in the New York City region in crisis management; and again, for the Flight 587 tragedy in November 2001. It’s a great industry creating opportunities for so many individuals and nations!

This Week’s Top Stories

The Public Supports Sustainable Aviation and They’re Willing Pay for It
(Friday – June 07, 2019) Source: Forbes – The International Air Transport Association has predicted that the number of commercial airline travelers will double in the next 20 years. This means that there will be more airplanes, more airports, and more pollution. The…

And – adding to the discussion – the Simple Flying web platform has an interesting story by Joanna Bailey on “sustainable jet fuel” – can it save the planet?  This is an ideal companion piece to the Top Story this week: 

What On Earth Is Sustainable Jet Fuel? Can It Save Our Planet?
(Friday – June 18, 2019) Source: Simple Flying – The use of sustainable aviation fuel is on the increase around the world. But what is this newfangled propulsion juice exactly, and is it the magic bullet to make aviation kinder to the environment?

Today, We Have Corporate ESG Comparisons Galore – The Institutional Investor Has Access to Volumes of ESG Data Sets & Information – Where Can Others Find Scores, Rankings and Ratings of Public Companies?

by Hank Boerner – Chair and Chief Strategist, G&A Institute

These days the comparisons of companies ESG strategies and performance in sectors and industries and among investment peers (those companies chasing similar sources of capital) are continuing to gain momentum. 

There is a sizable universe of third party players — ESG raters, rankers, scorers — busily analyzing, measuring and charting company ESG performance.

These organizations assign proprietary scores, rankings, ratings and various kinds of comparisons (company-to-company, company to industry etc) for their investor-clients. (The institutional asset owners and their asset management firms.)

Companies typically get to see how they are doing when they inspect their ESG service provider profiles…but those data and information sets are not always publicly available. They are the secret sauce provided to investors — institutions holding equity or bonds or researching candidates for investment.

So how should the person without access to the major ESG service providers’ confidential output understand where the public company sits in the views of the analysts (at least the highlights, such as scores assigned)? 

Slowly but steadily some of the volumes of information provided to investor clients by the major ESG ratings agencies are making their way into public view. 

For example, you can see a public company’s Sustainalytics highlights on Yahoo Finance. For Apple Inc. / NASDAQ: AAPL “ESG Total Score” information, click here.

Our colleagues at CSR Hub® share a number of Ratings & Rankings and other CSR and ESG highlights on their web site and their “ESG Hub” information (which is available on the Bloomberg Terminal®)  CSR Hub is at: https://www.csrhub.com/

Now a neat presentation comes our way from Visual Capital, authored by Jenna Ross.  This is a mapping of “The Countries with the Most Sustainable Corporate Giants”. 

Remember BlackRock CEO Larry Fink’s letter to corporate CEOs urging them to serve a social purpose to deliver not only financial performance but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society? 

Following on that theme, Corporate Knights “2019 Global 100 Report” data and ranking of the “most sustainable corporations in the world” is presented in visualization format.

Corporate Knights scores companies on a mix of metrics after screening for those with at least US$1 billion in revenues and sufficient sustainability reporting:  resource management; employee (or human capital) management; financial management; “clean” revenue; supplier performance. 

The United States comes out at the top of the charting with 22 of the 100 companies on the list, followed by France (11), Japan (8), Finland and United Kingdom 7), and Canada (6).  No company in China or India made the list.

Of the “Top 10-star players” only one is from the USA – the REIT Prologis Inc.  Denmark has two companies; the rest are one-off listings from other countries.

Author Jenna Ross sums up: “It’s clear that sustainability is a strong differentiator in the business community.  The world’s largest – and smartest – companies are leading the charge towards a greener, more equitable future.” 

We think you’ll find the charting of this Global 100 fascinating and very useful – and there are many other clever and useful visual presentations on the web site.  Check out our Top Story for this week.

This Week’s Top Stories

Mapped: The Countries With the Most Sustainable Corporate Giants   
(Wednesday – May 08, 2019) Source: Visual Capitalist – Society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose. To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society. 

Trump Administration Continues Attempts to Unravel U.S. Environmental Protections Put in Place Over Many Years – Now, Shareholder Proxy Resolution Actions on Climate Issues Also In Focus For Investors…

by Hank Boerner – Chair and Chief Strategist, G&A Institute

We should not have been surprised: in 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump promised that among his first steps when in the Oval Office would be the tearing up of his predecessor’s commitment to join the family of nations in addressing climate change challenges. 

In late-December 2015 in Paris, with almost 200 nations coming to agreement on tackling climate change issues, the United States of America with President Barack Obama presiding signed on to the “Paris Agreement” (or Accord) for sovereign nations and private, public and social sector organizations come together to work to prevent further damage to the planet.

The goal is to limit damage and stop global temperatures from rising about 2-degrees Centigrade, the issues agreed to. 

As the largest economy, of course the United States of America has a key role to play in addressing climate change.  Needed: the political will, close collaboration among private, public and social sectors — and funding for the transition to a low-carbon economy (which many US cities and companies are already addressing).

So where is the USA? 

On June 1st 2017 now-President Trump followed through on the promise made and said that the U.S.A. would begin the process to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change, joining the 13 nations that have not formally ratified the agreement by the end of 2018 (such as Russia, North Korea, Turkey and Iran).  

Entering 2019, 197 nations have ratified the Agreement.

A series of actions followed President Trump’s Paris Agreement announcement – many changes in policy at US EPA and other agencies — most of which served to attempt to weaken long-existing environmental protections, critics charged.

The latest move to put on your radar:  In April, President Trump signed an Executive Order that addresses “Promoting Energy Infrastructure and Economic Growth”.

[Energy] Infrastructure needs – a bipartisan issue – are very much in focus in the president’s recent EO.  But not the right kind to suit climate change action advocates. 

Important: The EO addressed continued administration promotion and encouraging of coal, oil and natural gas production; developing infrastructure for transport of these resources; cutting “regulatory uncertainties”; review of Clean Water Act requirements; and updating of the DOT safety regulations for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities.

Critics and supporters of these actions will of course line up on both sides of the issues.

There are things to like and to dislike for both sides in the president’s continuing actions related to environmental protections that are already in place.

And then there is the big issue in the EO:  a possible attempt to limit shareholder advocacy to encourage, persuade, pressure companies to address ESG issues.

Section 5 of the EO“Environment, Social and Governance Issues; Proxy Firms; and Financing of Energy Projects Through the U.S. Capital Markets.” 

The EO language addresses the issue of Materiality as the US Supreme Court advises.  Is ESG strategy, performance and outcome material for fiduciaries? Many in the mainstream investment community believe the answer is YES!

Within 180 days of the order signing, the Secretary of the Department of Labor will complete a review existing DOL guidance on fiduciary responsibilities for investor proxy voting to determine whether such guidance should be rescinded, replaced, or modified to “ensure consistency with current law and policies that promote long-term growth and maximize return on ERISA plan assets”. 

(Think of the impact on fiduciaries of the recommendations to be made by the DOL, such as public employee pension plans.) 

The Obama Administration in 2016 issued a DOL Interpretive Bulletin many see as a “green light” for fiduciaries to consider when incorporating ESG analysis and portfolio decision-making.  The Trump EO seems to pose a direct threat to that guidance.

We can expect to see sustainable & responsible investors marshal forces to aggressively push back against any changes that the Trump/DOL forces might advance to weaken the ability of shareholders – fiduciaries, the owners of the companies! – to influence corporate strategies and actions (or lack of action) on climate change risks and opportunities.  Especially through their actions in the annual corporate proxy ballot process and in engagements. 

You’ll want to stay tuned to this and the other issues addressed in the Executive Order.  We’ll have more to report to you in future issues of the newsletter.

Click here to President Trump’s April 10, 2019 Executive Order.

Facts or not?  Click here if you would like to fact check the president’s comments on withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

We are still in!  For the reaction of top US companies to the Trump announcement on pulling out of the Paris Accord, check The Guardiancoverage of the day.

At year end 2018, this was the roundup of countries in/and not.

For commentaries published by G&A Institute on the Sustainability Update blog related to the above matters, check out it here.

Check out our Top Story for details on President Trump’s recent EO.

This Week’s Top Stories

Trump Order Takes Aim at Shareholders Pushing Companies to Address Climate Change
(Wednesday – April 77, 2019) Source: Climate Liability News – President Trump has ordered a review of the influence of proxy advisory firms on investments in the fossil fuel industry, a mot that…

Survey Results: Global Institutional Investors with US$8.4 Trillion in AUM Confirm The Rising Value of Corporate ESG Principles

by Hank Boerner – Chair and Chief Strategist, G&A Institute

The FTI Consulting business advisory firm surveyed a set of 130 global institutional investors to gauge the depth and breadth of U.S. assets invested using ESG principles. 

This group of investors, contacted from May through July 2018, responded that their Assets Under Management totaling US$8.4 trillion was believed to have benefited by the contribution of extra [corporate] value to a company with a high ESG rating.

And an “extremely positive/high ESG rating” might add an extra 22 percent of corporate value, said the survey responders.  An earlier survey by the same firm – FTI Consulting – revealed that more than 2,000 large-cap global leaders expressed the same views.

There are two factors at work here: (1) there’s greater demand for [qualified] corporate stock by the ESG-conscious investment community; and, (2) the perception that these higher corporate ESG / sustainability performers may be better positioned for the future (yes, they’re more sustainable) and be less likely to encounter regulatory issues and activist activities that could impact reputation and valuation.

In the company’s FTI Journal the authors point that while ESG was once “nice to have” (dating back from the introduction of the phrase in corporate and investing circles a decade-and-a-half-ago), today ESG is integral to a company’s planning and strategy-setting in the eyes of the institutional investor.

A significant share — 87% — told FTI Consulting that an extremely-positive/high rating would add to a company’s worth. 

The survey results include the specific views on this by country (Japan leads, the G-20 nations’ responders are in the middle; the USA is 8th in holding those views).  

FTI released its “Resilience Barometer” report at the World Economic Forum (WEF) Davos meeting, which showed an alignment of understanding in the corporate sector:  The leaders of 2,248 large-cap companies across the G-20 held similar views on the value of ESG on company worth. 

Keep in mind the G-20* account for 90% of GDP and two-thirds of world population, with annual turnover of US$1.6 trillion. (The research for that report was conducted in December 2018.)

So, on the part of the asset managers, what are they looking at in terms of the sources of ESG (from the ratings/reporting services for investors)? 

They responded:  Bloomberg’s ESG Data Service; MSCI ESG Research; Sustainalytics Company ESG Reports; ISS (now adding E and S QualityScores to the long-term G/governance score); CDP; the DJSI; RobecoSAM; RepRisk; VigeoEIRIS; and Oekom

Here’s an interesting finding:  more than half of the institutional investors claim they don’t know how the third party ratings organizations compile their reports.

There’s more detail and charts for you in the Top Story this week. There’s also an interesting development briefly described in the second item up top.

* Notes: The G-20 international forum consists of the world’s leading sovereign economies (19) and the European Union (28 states today including the United Kingdom).  The big economies are there:  USA, Germany, Canada, China, Australia, Saudi Arabia; Japan. Smaller economies such as Turkey and Argentina participate.  Other key players participating include the World Bank; the IMF; the International Labor Organization; WTO; and, the United Nations.


This Week’s Top Stories

Global Survey: Injection of ESG Builds Corporate Value
(Tuesday – April 02, 2019) Source: FTI Joiurnal – An FTI Consulting survey of global institutional investors managing more than a sum of US$8.4 trillion in assets confirms the rising value of corporate Environmental, Social and Governance principles in their investment… 

Corporate Supply Chain Sustainability Strategies & Programs: Count as a Cost or Strategic Investment? Consultant to Large-Cap Companies Provides Some Helpful Answers for Corporate Managers

by Hank Boerner – Chair and Chief Strategist – G&A Institute

Question:  Does a corporate sustainability program “cost” (and thus shows up on the “expense” side of the ledger) or are there measurable “returns” on the investments that companies are making to develop or adjust strategies, assemble teams and launch sustainability programs? (Especially those that have set goals and where progress is measured and then publicly reported.)

We frequently hear this kind of discussion in the meetings and phone calls we have with corporate managers, especially those at companies where management is now considering what to do or perhaps just starting out on their sustainability journey. 

Senior managements often begin internal discussions with the questions for their managers:

Who is asking for this? What will this cost to respond? 
And where is the ROI for our efforts?

Working with client organizations we see the firms’ customers and clients asking their supply chain partners about their respective sustainability efforts and requesting extensive ESG information, directly of the firms (with detailed questionnaires) and through third parties such as EcoVadis and CDP Supply Chains.

The questions are coming faster and more detailed than in previous years.

The important customer with a range of sustainability-themed “asks” of course considers their supply partners to be part of their (the customer’s) overall sustainability footprint – and so the questions.   

Corporate sustainability leaders understand the importance of the “ask” and provide detailed answers to their valued customers.

If the questions internally at the supplier company are along the lines of: “why” or “who is asking” and “what will this cost us” or “what is the return”…consider: 

“Economic longevity and social and environmental responsibility are increasingly two sides of the same coin. Consumer surveys show that many favored brands are focused on sustainability.  And, removing waste and emissions from the supply chain goes hand-in-hand with efficiency…both boost the corporate bottom line.”

That’s some of the essence of a timely report – “Sustainability: The Missing Link” – that was authored by the Economist Intelligence Unit and sponsored by LLamasoft, an Ann Arbor, Michigan-based supply chain management software provider serving such clients as Ford Motor, 3M, Intel, Bayer, and Kellogg’s.

Highlights of the report and important background come to us this week from Supply Chain & Demand Executive magazine, with an interview with Dr. Madhav Durbha, Group VP at LLamsoft. 

The interviewer explores how sustainability considerations cause companies to think differently about their supply chains and examples of global companies are managing the triple bottom line.

The questions asked of Dr. Durbha by the magazine’s Amy Wunderlin

Why are many supply chains still doomed to inefficiency and environmental waste?  What are the top mistakes companies often make when trying to make their supply chain green? How many organizations strike a balance between profitability and sustainability despite current economic uncertainty? Why are addressing sustainability needs through the entire supply chain important? (There are more questions and more answers in the interview.)

An important take away from the interview: 

“As long as organizations think of cost reduction [efforts] and sustainability being at odds, they may be missing out opportunities to accomplish these dual objectives.”

There are numerous helpful hints for you in this week’s Top Story. 
SDC/Supply Chain & Demand Executive magazine, published by b-to-b media & intelligence company AC Business Media, covers warehousing, transport, procurement and sustainability, among many topics. Subscriptions to SDCExec.com are free. 

This Week’s Top Story

Profitability or Sustainability? It Doesn’t Have to be a Choice
(Wednesday – March 27, 2019) Source: Supply and Demand Chain Executive – Dr. Madhav Durbha of LLamasoft offers insight into why–with the proper tools–organizations don’t need to choose between profitability and sustainability, despite current economic uncertainty. 

Here is the link to the report: http://www2.llamasoft.com/Sustainability:TheMissingLink-NA

EDF Report Offers Perspectives on the Current State of Sustainability Ratings and Rankings — and Has Suggestions for Improvement…

by Hank Boerner – Chair and Chief Strategist, G&A Institute

Ratings, rankings, scores, best of lists – these are increasingly important to corporate issuers and for investors

The popular CBS TV Network nighttime host David Letterman for many years provided us with periods of laughter with his well-known top 10 list segments. (Example: The Top 10 Stupid Things Americans Say to Brits.)

There’s long been a spirited competition in the corporate sector along the lines of the popular “top of” or “best of” lists (with rankings) that companies are awarded, and/or that companies pursue in the effort to garner more third party recognitions and awards. 

In recent years, there’s been a steadily-increasing number of such contests focused on governance, social and environmental issues.

Popular audience “top 10” awards seem to proliferate overnight (like mushrooms in the forest) coming forth from publishers, NGOs, conference organizers, trade associations, professional membership organizations, academia, and others.  All are welcome to some degree by investors and stakeholders and can add luster to the company reputation and brand.

Indeed, here at G&A Institute we have well beyond 400 “corporate awards and recognitions” related to ESG / Corporate Sustainability, Corporate Responsibility, Corporate Citizenship, et al…identified and profiled to help client companies round out their third party awards roster with relevant, suitable recognitions of different kinds. 

The competitive kinds that we’re all familiar with include Best in industry. Best workplace for women. For LGBTQ employees. Best business sector economic development contributors in the state (the Governor’s Award). Best companies for Hispanic or African-American engineers…and on and on.

Some of these types of recognitions are well known and for investors and stakeholders, welcomed signals of third party recognitions of a company’s citizenship, responsibility or sustainability / ESG progress and achievements.

Many awards began as editorial features of magazines. (In past years, members of our team worked with Fortune on a “Best Places” annual award.)  Forbes is another well-regarded business and finance publication with much-followed awards for companies (the Best Employers List; Best Employers for Diversity; Top Companies to Work For, and more).

Investor-Focused Ratings / Rankings / Scores / Leadership Lists

And then there are the all-important ratings, rankings, scores, index/benchmark selections that many more public companies are receiving from such service provider organizations as MSCI, Sustainalytics and Institutional Shareholder Services.

There are many robust corporate ESG profiles in the Bloomberg platform or on Thomson Reuters’ Eikon (now, “Refinitiv” branded); and coming forth from a host of other ratings organizations in the U.S. and Europe. 

These ESG data sets, and rankings / ratings are also used by many third parties in the methodology to create other awards, recognitions, indexes, and so on.  This is why it’s critical for companies to engage with and improve these key ESG investor data sets and rankings as they flow down and are used by many investors and many other stakeholders.

At the top – in the board room, C-suite — these are indeed critical recognitions and independent (to a large degree) profiles of a company’s ESG strategy, actions, achievements, and recognitions.  Of course there’s grumbling from companies about the efforts to keep up and the independent views of the raters, and how the company may be presented in the ratings work.

So how do the best of these ratings pay off for the public issuer?

Consider:  In terms of ROI for their awards efforts, sustainability rankings can help companies define internal performance measures, attract top talent and link executive comp to corporate sustainability efforts…so write the authors of an essay in Forbes.

Victoria Mills and Austin Reagan of the EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) then add:  Unfortunately, there’s a significant problem with these sustainability lists.

The authors point to a new report – “The Blind Spot in Corporate Sustainability Rankings: Climate Policy Leadership” – produced by EDF+Business — which posits that: “Environmental problems like climate change will never be solved through voluntary corporate actions alone. Public policies are critical to reduce environmental impacts across the economy in an efficient and equitable manner, and on a scale commensurate with the challenges.”

The missing link, thinks EDF, is [corporate] public policy advocacy; companies can be doing more than just addressing their own ESG issues (and winning third party recognition for leadership and admirable rankings and scores from ESG raters).

EDF thinks the most powerful tool companies have to fight climate change is their political influence.

The report explains EDF views on rankings vs. ratings; analysis of rankings (“all have a major blind spot”, explains EDF); the challenges of integrating climate policy advocacy into sustainability rankings; and, a series of recommendations.

The EDF opinions are sure to stimulate debate now among asset owners and managers, and within the corporate community. 

We’re all hooked on sustainability / ESG rankings, ratings, scores and other opinions; they’ve become ever-more important in the decision-making of key asset managers.  So, in this brief report, EDF shares its perspective on the way forward to make corporate reporting on ESG more robust.

Click here to view the 12-page report.

This Week’s Top Story

The Good, The Bad And The Blind Spot Of Corporate Sustainability Rankings
(Thursday – March 21, 2019) Source: Forbes – No matter the industry, business stakeholders care about lists – who’s on them and who’s on top. Consider this small sampling: Fast Company’s “50 Most Innovative Companies” list, Fortune’s “Change the World” list, Forbes’ “The…

Millennials Really Do Want To Work for Environmentally-Sustainable Companies, According to a New Survey of Large Company Employees

by Hank Boerner – Chair and Chief Strategist, G&A Institute

Here we are in the new millennium, since 2000 or 2001 (the clear delineation of the century-break has been debated) and the generation that straddles the 20th and 21st centuries has characteristics that may be quite different for employers (and as customers, investors, voters).

The Millennial Generation has been defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as those men and women born between 1981 and 1996, who are 23-to-38 years of age in 2019. (For sure, the exact definitions of recent generations are not always in general agreement.)

This cohort succeeded the smaller-sized “Generation Xers” and the larger Baby Boom generation (born 1946-1964, originally 77 million strong and two-thirds larger than the “Silents” before them).  The long-dominant Boomer population has been decreasing in total size since 2012…so what comes next for the business sector and the financial sector?

Answer:  Millennials! – and then over time the Post-Millennials, those born 1997-to-the-present day. But today’s focus is on the many impacts, strong and subtle, of the Millennials.

The Pew Research Center sees some of the defining trends for the Millennials as including experiencing the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the aftermath (shes off at the airport screening); the 2008 financial crisis and the impacts of the Great Recession that followed; steadily escalating costs for higher education and healthcare and housing…and other factors that created “slow starts” for their careers and “that will be a factor for American society for decades to come.”

This is also the generation that grew up surrounded with technology and for some, the experience of transition from land-line phones to early cell phones and then on to sophisticated iPhones; and for most, the internet, the World Wide Web, and social media became the center of life, observes the Pew researchers.

So what should business leaders expect as this maturing generation – in terms of attractive to potential job applicants and for retention of Millennials already under the roof?

Fast Company, the go-to magazine for many in the generation, says corporate sustainability is a priority and most Millennials would actually take a pay cut to work at an environmentally-responsible company; 40 percent have already done so because “company sustainability”. That is higher than the answers of respondents of prior generations (below 25% for Gen Xers and 17% for parents and grandparents in the post-WW II Boomer crowd).

Millennial survey respondents (40%) said they have chosen a job because the company performed better on sustainability than other choices…something only 17% of Boomers said they had done.  As for employee retention, consider that 70% of Millennials said they would stay with a company if it had a strong sustainability plan.

Are these survey results a “blip”?  Fast Company [magazine] tells us that in 2016 a similar survey reported that 64% of Millennials said they would not take a job at a company that was not “socially responsible” — and 75% said they would take a smaller salary to work at a company more in line with their “values”.

The 2019 survey was based on conversations with 1,000 employees at large U.S. companies.  More than 70% of respondents said they would choose to work at a company with a strong environmental agenda, and a sizable number said they would take a pay cut to do so.

Today’s business leaders need to keep these attitudes in mind as this significant demographic shift is taking place.  As the huge generation of Baby Boomers continue to age out of the workplace (the oldest are 73 years of age, the youngest are now 55),

Transition:  Millennials will make up three-out-of-every-four workers in the next six years, staff writer Adele Peters tells readers.(And the Census Bureau says they are one-out-of-four of the total US population today.)

The survey was commissioned by the blockchain-based clean energy platform Swytch – another sign of the times; this is a new platform organized to track and verify the impact of sustainability efforts and action on the global level of C02 emissions using blockchain technology.

The company says that consumers reducing their energy use can win tokens.  Is this 21st Century approach to currency exchange a “blip”? Perhaps not – JPMorgan Chase recently announced its own crypto-currency and as we write this, Bitcoin values are at $4,000.

Says Swytch co-founder Evan Caron of the survey:  “From my perspective, it’s a competitive advantage for large enterprises to really align themselves with employees’ ideas about creating more environmentally-sustainable choices.”

This Week’s Top Story

Most millennials would take a pay cut to work at a environmentally responsible company
(Friday – February 15, 2019) Source: Fast Company – Nearly 40% of millennials have chosen a job because of company sustainability. Less than a quarter of gen X respondents said the same, and 17% of baby boomers.