Climate Change Resolutions / and Investors’ Voting — “Hurricane” Coming in 2017 Shareholder Voting?

“Stormy Weather Ahead Warning”:  Climate Change Resolutions / and Investors’ Voting — “Hurricane” Coming in 2017 Shareholder Proxy Voting Season?

Guest Commentary – by Seth DuppstadtProxy Insight Limited

The United Nations‘ consensus reached in the “Paris Agreement” (COP 21), the goal to limit global temperature rise to within 2 degrees Celsius could turn shareholder support for climate change resolutions from a squall into a powerful hurricane at U.S. energy and utility companies this proxy season. says our team at Proxy Insight.

Example cited:  The BlackRock Investment Stewardship Team’s new guidance on climate risk engagement made the possibility of a Category 5 storm conceivable — if companies aren’t responsive.

During the 2016 corporate proxy season, a particularly successful subset of shareholder-sponsored climate change resolutions — known as 2 Degree Scenario (“2DS”) proposals —  averaged 37.73 percent shareholder support:

ISSUER MEETING DATE % FOR
Devon Energy Corporation 8-Jun-16 36.06
Southern Company (The) 25-May-16 34.46
Exxon Mobil Corporation 25-May-16 38.14
Chevron Corporation 25-May-16 40.76
FirstEnergy Corporation 17-May-16 31.9
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation 10-May-16 42
Occidental Petroleum Corporation 29-Apr-16 48.99
Noble Energy Inc. 26-Apr-16 25.1
AES Corporation (The) 21-Apr-16 42.21

 

This was a notably high level of support for a first-round shareholder proposal — especially for climate change related. *

Example:  The proposal at Occidental Petroleum almost gained a majority with 48.99% of votes cast in support (not including abstentions).

Proxy Insight data show Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) recommended For votes for all nine 2DS resolutions, while proxy advisor Glass Lewis opposed one.

The shareholder resolutions ask companies to stress test their portfolios and report on financial risks that could occur in a low-carbon economy.

Up to 17 2DS resolutions are expected to move to vote at U.S. companies in 2017 proxy voting, according to Ceres.  (Ten will be filed at companies not having these resolutions before).  The next scheduled company voting on 2DS will be at AES Corp on April 20th. A preliminary proxy indicates Duke Energy shareholders will be voting on May 4.

*excluding non-US “Strategic Resilience for 2035” proposals (2015/16)

 TOP-10 INVESTORS (AUM) MOST FREQUENTLY SUPPORTING “2DS” CLIMATE CHANGE RESOLUTIONS

Investor For Against Abstain DNV Split
Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Legal & General Investment Management 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Legg Mason Partners Fund Advisor, LLC. 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
AXA Investment Managers 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
APG (Stichting PF ABP) 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Schroders 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
M&G Investment Management 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Aviva Investors 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Information is available at:  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/climate-change-voting-calm-before-storm-seth-duppstadt

Proxy Insight is the leading provider of global shareholder voting analytics.

Visit www.proxyinsight.com for more information, where you can also sign up for a trial or contact Seth Duppstadt, SVP Proxy Insight Limited at: seth.duppstadt@proxyinsight.com  Telephone:  646-513-4141

Musing About the Alphabet Soup of ESG – SRI – CSR … et al!

Blog post

March 16, 2017

by Hank Boerner and Louis CoppolaG&A Institute

Often in our conversations with managers at companies that are new to corporate sustainability and especially new to publishing corporate sustainability reports, we often move into exploration of the various terms and titles applied to corporate sustainability.

SRI.  ESG.  Sustainability.  Corporate Citizenship.  Corporate Responsibility. 

Or, Corporate Social Responsibility.  Shorthand:  CSR, CR.  What else!

And on the investment side, in our discussions with financial analysts, or asset managers, we’re discussing socially responsible investing, sustainable & responsible investing (both SRI) and more recently, sustainable & responsible & impact investing — the “S&R&I”).

This alphabet soup of titles, characterizations, approach classifications and so on is usually confusing to corporate managers not well versed in matters related to corporate sustainability.

And, to investors new to sustainable investing, sustainable & responsible investing, impact investing, analyzing corporate ESG analytics…those managers also have questions on what all these terms really mean (And ask: is there a substantive difference between terms?).

Each year as the data partners for the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in the U.S.A., United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, we analyze and database more than 1,500 reports each year (most are published by corporations; there are also institutional and public sector reports). Here we see firsthand every day this alphabet soup of terms playing out:

  • Corporate Responsibility / Corporate Social Responsibility (CR/CSR)
  • Corporate Citizenship (an older but still popular titling, especially among large-caps)
  • Corporate Sustainability (more often leaning toward environmental management, growing out of the traditional EHS functions at operating companies)
  • Environmental Update / Progress Report
  • Corporate Ethics

The Investment Community Point-of-View

And for investors:  There is also Faith-based investing and ethical investing, and a few other terms.  (“Green Bonds” are coming on strong!)

Many institutional investor  — asset owners and their managers, and their analysts — are seeming to favor “ESG” because it better captures the entirety of the three main issues buckets (Corporate Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance strategies, performance and issues) that make up what most investors consider to be a pretty good definition of corporate sustainability.

As corporate sustainability consultants and advisors, working closely with managements to help them effectively engage with investors on ESG issues, and so we see the term ESG becoming more and more of a preferred term for these discussions.

Consider, too, the familiar Bloomberg terminal on the desks of many investors is helping to bring volumes of corporate ESG data through the Bloomberg ESG Dashboard.

The Views of the Professional Analyst

The CFA Institute, the global education, training, testing and certification, and professional standards organization for financial analysts (“Charterholders” use the CFA professional designation) addressed this alphabet soup in its recent guide for investment professionals — “Environmental, Social and Governance Issues in Investing” (published in 2016).

The guide authors explain:  “The practice of environmental, social and governance issues in investing has evolved significantly from its origins in the exclusionary screening of listed equities on the basis of moral values. A variety of methods are now being used by both value-motivated and values-motivated investors considering ESG issues across asset classes.”

(The guide was authored by Usman Hayet, CFA; Matt Orsagh, CFA, CIPM; with contributions by Kurt N. Schacht, JD, CFA; and Rebecca A. Fender, CFA.)  Consider their views:

E:  Looking at the environmental components (the “E”), CFA Institute, investor concerns include climate change and fossil fuel assets [becoming stranded], water stress…that means that corporate ESG KPIs should be carefully examined.

S:  Looking at the social (“S”), the authors point out that labor relations can have a direct and significant impact on financial performance.

G:  Looking at corporate governance (“G”), the authors note that these were previously seen as a concern for value-motivated investment, and the E and S issues were relevant mainly for values-motivated investors.  Not anymore  — ESG issues are relevant for all long-term investors.

The CFA authors explain that there are various labels for the same issues and ESG common theme underlying the various labels is an emphasis is on ESG issues.

We Are Leaning in the Direction of….

In our work we prefer to use “Sustainability” or “ESG”, which we think best encapsulates the entirety of what we consider to be the issues in focus for institutional and individual investors.  And therefore we advise that the company’s ESG key performance indicators should be a priority concern for the board, C-suite and various level of management and corporate function areas, because of the importance of access to capital, cost of capital, and so on.

The corporate ESG performance and reporting on same might be positioned under an oversight umbrella in the corporate structure. We see these ESG activities being in the province of legal, public affairs, human resources, supply chain management, operations, EHS, investor relations, finance, corporate communications, and so on.

At times, however, we do find that some people in the corporate community hear the term “Sustainability” they automatically think only of environmental-related issues — (“E”) which of course, are just one part of what we consider sustainability to be.

And yes, all of this is still not clear cut, is it?  Varying terms and titles will probably be used for a while.

As explained, we prefer ESG when we are working with our sustainability consulting clients because this term includes the three main issue areas or buckets of issues — and says what it means. Using “ESG” tends to  make sure that it’s clear that our work includes three “bucket” areas – Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance.  (Not just Environmental!)

And the clearer we can be with our terminology, and more specific, the better off we will all be.

But Investors Are Not Asking….

Managers at many companies that we communicate with, especially in our investor relations sustainability consulting, will say, “Why don’t our analysts ask questions about sustainability on our quarterly calls?”

Erika Karp, formerly of UBS and founder of Cornerstone Capital in New York City often responds to this key question during her public presentations (Cornerstone is an ESG-focused investment firm.)

Erika:  “You’re wrong, they are asking!  If you peel back the layers of the “E” (climate, biodiversity, water, energy, waste etc); the “S” (employee retention, training, community engagement, human rights, labor contracts, benefits); and the “G” (executive compensation, proxy resolutions, board makeup, board independence, board skills, board diversity, critical issues management, and oversight of the company’s key functions) — then you can listen to the quarterly calls and you will see that you are in fact getting questions on sustainability (or ESG issues).”

We agree with Erika!  And this line of discussion points even more to the problems with our terminology in this space.

Of course, even though the analyst may not be asking: “Hey, so what about your sustainability?” the analysts and asset managers on your  calls may be or are asking about the individual elements that make up sustainability, and some of these ESG KPI’s are more important than others.  It’s important to recognize that these are Sustainability issues that they are asking you about!

As We Move Ahead…

All of this terminology discussion is our industry’s challenge, and somewhat of an educational problem in that we need to better inform others about the intricacies and the complexities that make up “Corporate Sustainability” so that there is deeper understanding of the full breadth and depth and importance of the ESG performance areas — and of the full impacts on a company’s reputation, valuation and more.

Of course, there are variations in which of these ESG issues is important (or material!), depending on industry and sector, size and geography.

We think that as we move along, “ESG” will continue to be a more preferred term for many analysts looking holistically at a public issuer. ESG will likely to continue to catch on because this approach will more clearly reflect the “completeness and complexity” of the various issue buckets that make up the corporate sustainability journey – ESG represents what it means and says what it is!

The Early Evolvement of SRI – and the Lasting Legacy

Looking back, the emergence of the Socially Responsible Investing approach (SRI #1), starting with screening out the shares of companies from portfolios (tobacco, gaming, etc.) may have a lasting legacy for some in the investment community.  More and more investors are now using the term, Sustainable & Responsible Investing (SRI #2), and even Sustainable & Responsible & Impact Investing (SRI #3 also!). These are gaining currency in the mainstream analyst and asset management communities.

And so, this is not necessarily a new discussion about titles and terminologies – it has been going on for quite some time.  In April 2009, when one of us (Hank) was editing the National Investor Relations Institute monthly magazine — IR Update — he offered up a commentary: ” Stay Tuned: More Initials for the IRO — These Could Spell Long-Term Success… Or Market Failure for Corporate Issuers ”

It was about ESG – SRI – CSR – even TARP (remember that?) — in that almost a decade-ago column, we noted that a 2008 survey of asset owners and managers, two terms were emerging as the preferred references:  ESG and Sustainability best summed up their approach.  We think this still rings true today.

It’s still an interesting read:  http://www.hankboerner.com/library/NIRI%20IR%20Update/2009/Boerner2009Apr.pdf

What are you thinking about this?  Do weigh in — please share your thoughts in the comments area below — weigh in on the dialogue!

What are your preferred terms in the daily conversation about…….

 

 

World’s Largest Asset Manager on Climate Risk Disclosure — the BlackRock Expectations of Public Company Boards and C-Suite

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

Monday, March 13, 2017 — The world’s largest asset management firm has clear expectations that corporate managements will disclose more on climate risk to their shareholder base…BlackRock speaks out.  Corporate boards and C-Suite – Important News for You….

You all know BlackRock — this the New York City-based “world’s largest asset manager guiding individuals, financial professionals, and institutions in building better financial futures…”

“That includes offerings such as mutual fund, closed-end funds, managed accounts, alternative investments, iShares ETFs, defined contribution plans…”

And — “advocating for public policies that we believe are in our investors’ long-term interests…” “…ensuring long-term sustainability for the firm, client investments and the communities where we work…”

For BlackRock, Corporate Sustainability includes: (1) human capital, (2) corporate governance (3) environmental sustainability, (4) ethics and integrity, (5) inclusion and diversity, (6) advocating for public policy, and (7) health and safety.

In terms of Responsible Investing, the BlackRock approach includes (1) investment stewardship and (2) having a sustainable investing platform (targeting social and environmental objectives AND the all-important financial return).

So it should not come as a big surprise to the boards and managements of literally thousands of public issuers that BlackRock has great expectations regarding the individual company’s (in a portfolio or hope to be) climate change disclosure practices.

What We Are Doing/How We Do it – Shared by BlackRock

Right now the BlackRock managers are sharing with other asset owners & managers their approach to sustainable investing. There are important lessons for corporate managements in these explanations:

As part of the investment process, BlackRock continues to assess a range of factors (that could impact the long-term financial sustainability of the public companies or companies).

Over the past two years, a number of projects have helped BlackRock to more fully understand climate change. BlackRock believes that climate risk (climate risk/change issues) have the potential to present definitive risks and opportunities that could or will impact long-term shareholder value.

The BlackRock team members also contributed to external initiatives such as the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) and the continued development of the voluntary reporting guidelines of the Sustainable Accounting Standards Board (SASB).

Larry Fink – the influential CEO of BlackRock — sent letters directly to the CEO’s of public companies in 2016 and then again recently (2017) that called attention to the need for the companies to help their investors better understand the ESG factors most relevant to the firm to generate value over time.

That especially includes more robust disclosure and reporting on the issues related to climate risk. (We need to keep in mind that “risk” has a companion — “opportunity,” as represented in the Chinese pictograph for a crisis.)

BlackRock’s Investment Stewardship Team meets with portfolio company managements and votes BlackRock shares at proxy voting time; if an issue is in focus and the C-suite will not make progress on the issue, the team will elevate the concern to the company’s board room. And they “may” in time vote against director nominees and for shareholders proposals that are on the right side of BlackRock’s own concerns.

Company Boards and Executives – for 2017

BlackRock engages with 1,500 companies (on average) every year. As (according to BlackRock) climate risk awareness and its engagement with companies on the issues is being advanced, and as the asset management firm’s own thinking on climate risk continues to evolve, that issue is on the table for the Investment Stewardship Team discussions with company managements in 2017.

Companies “most exposed” to climate risk will be encouraged as part of the discussions to consider reporting recommendations coming from the FSB Task Force.

And, the board will be expected to have “demonstrable fluency in how climate risk affects the business and management’s approach to adapting to and mitigating the risk. Corporate disclosure on all of this will be key to the ongoing relationship with the investor – BlackRock (with US$5 trillion and more AUM).

Other Investment Management Peers

Tim Smith, Director of ESG Shareholder Engagement at Walden Asset Management (Boston)

Tim Smith, Director of ESG Shareholder Engagement at Walden Asset Management (Boston) and long a robust and powerful voice in the sustainable investing movement, applauded BlackRock’s shared information.

“The announcement that climate risk will be a priority in their engagements with public companies is an exceedingly important message being sent by one of your largest shareholders. That they believe climate risk is a priority reinforces the importance of the issues for senior managements of public companies. We’re hopeful that BlackRock’s announcement and engagement on climate risk will result in active support for shareholder resolutions on climate change.”

Walden and others filed their own shareholder resolution with BlackRock asking for a review of the asset manager’s corporate proxy voting process and record on climate change.

BlackRock has been accused by investment peers for its proxy voting practices. For example, Climate Wire reported in 2016 that IF BlackRock and its large institutional investment peers had supported a climate resolution filed with Exxon Mobil (this was part of the not-for-profit Asset Owners Disclosure Project) the resolution would have passed in the final vote by shareholders.

We’ll see what the 2017 BlackRock moves mean in the corporate proxy season getting underway now with continued investor focus on climate change / climate risk / global warming disclosure and reporting demands.

As corporate sustainability consultants and advisors, we at G&A Institute (and as part of our pro bono research work as the exclusive Data Partners for the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in the United States) analyzed more than 1,500 report sustainability reports in 2016 — and we are seeing an increase now in 2017 early survey results that corporate disclosure on climate risk issues is definitely on the increase.

We will soon release the results of our team’s analysis of S&P 500(r) on sustainability reporting and related issues. Recall that our analysis last year found that 81 percent of the 500 companies were doing structured sustainability reporting.

There’s more information for you here:

https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en-us/about-us/investment-stewardship/engagement-priorities

https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en-us/literature/market-commentary/how-blackrock-investment-stewardship-engages-on-climate-risk-march2017.pdf

Asset Owners Disclosure Project:  http://aodproject.net/

Tim Smith / Walden Asset Management:

http://www.waldenassetmgmt.com/team/smith-timothy

 

 

News From the Sustainability Front as The Trump White House Makes Controversial Moves on ESG Issues — Actions and Reactions

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

February 23, 2017
Forward Momentum! – Sustainability 2017

Are you like many of us having sleepless nights and anxiety spells as you watch the antics of the Trump White House and the creeping (and similarly moving-backwards) effects into the offices of important Federal agencies that the Administration is taking over?

Consider then “other news” — and not fake news, mind you, or alt-news — but encouraging real news that is coming from OTHER THAN the Federal government.

We are on track to continue to move ahead in building a more sustainable nation and world — despite the roadblocks being discussed or erected that are designed to slow the corporate sustainability movement or the steady uptake of sustainable investing in the capital markets.

Consider the Power and Influence of the Shareowner and Asset Managers:

The CEO of the largest asset manager in the world — BlackRock’s Larry Fink — in his annual letters to the CEOs of the S&P 500 (R) companies in January said this: “Environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors relevant to a company’s business can provide essential insights into management effectiveness and thus a company’s long-term prospects. We look to see that a company is attuned to the key factors that contribute to long-term growth:
(1) sustainability of the business model and its operations; (2) attention to external and environmental factors that could impact the company; (3) recognition of the company’s role as a member of the communities in which it operates.

A global company, CEO Fink wrote to the CEOs, needs to be “local” in every single one of its markets. And as BlackRock constructively engages with the S&P 500 corporate CEOs, it will be looking to see how the company’s strategic framework reflects the impact of last year’s changes in the global environment…in the ‘new world’ in which the company is operating.

BlackRock manages US$5.1 trillion in Assets Under Management. The S&P 500 companies represent about 85% of the total market cap of corporate equities.  Heavyweights, we would say, in shaping U.S. sustainability.

* * * * * * * *

As S&R investment pioneer Steve Viederman often wisely notes, “where you sit determines where you stand…” (on the issues of the day).  More and more commercial space users (tenants and owners) want to “sit” in green spaces — which demonstrates where they “stand” on sustainability issues.

Consider:  In the corporate sector, Retail and other tenants are demanding that landlords provide “green buildings,” according to Chris Noon (Builtech Services LLC CEO). The majority of his company’s construction projects today can easily achieve LEED status, he says (depending on whether the tenant wanted to pursue the certification, which has some cost involved). The company is Chicago-based.

This is thanks to advances in materials, local building codes, a range of technology, and rising customer-demand.

End users want to “sit” in “green buildings” — more than 40% of American tenants recently surveyed across property types expect now to have a “sustainable home.” The most common approaches include energy-saving HVAC systems, windows and plumbing. More stringent (local and state) building codes are also an important factor.

Municipalities — not the Federal government — are re-writing building codes, to reflect environmental and safety advances and concerns. Next week (Feb 28) real estatyer industry reps will gather in Chicago for the Bisnow’s 7th Annual Retail Event at the University Club of Chicago to learn more about these trends.

* * * * * * * *

Institutional investors managing US$17 trillion in assets have created a new Corporate Governance framework — this is the Investor Stewardship Group.

The organizers include such investment powerhouses as BlackRock, Fidelity and RBC Global Asset Management (a dozen in all are involved at the start). There are six (6) Principles advanced to companies by the group that including addressing (1) investment stewardship for institutional investors and (2) for public corporation C-suite and board room. These Principles would be effective on January 1 (2018), giving companies and investors time to adjust.

One of the Principles is for majority voting for director elections (no majority, the candidate does not go on board). Another is the right for investors to nominate directors with information posted on the candidate in the proxy materials.

Both of these moves when adopted by public companies would greatly enhance the activism of sustainable & responsible investors, such as those in key coalitions active in the proxy season, and year-round in engagements with companies (such as ICCR, INCR).

No waiting for SEC action here, if the Commission moves away from investor-friendly policies and practices as signaled so far. And perhaps – this activism will send strong messages to the SEC Commissioners on both sides of the aisle.

Remember:  $17 trillion in AUM at the start of the initiative — stay tuned to the new Investor Stewardship Group.  These are more “Universal Owners” with clout.

* * * * * * * *

Not really unexpected but disappointing nevertheless:  The Trump Administration made its moves on the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), part of the Bakken Field project work, carrying out a campaign promise that caters to the project’s primary owners (Energy Transfer Partners**) and other industry interests, S&R investors are acting rapidly in response.

The company needed a key easement to complete construction across a comparatively small distance. Except that…

  • The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe says the route would cross their drinking water source, impact their sacred sites, and threaten environmentally-sensitive areas;
  • would violate treaty territory without meeting international standards for their consent; (this is the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, which according to the U.S. Constitution, should be the supreme law of the land);
  • and ignore alleged shortcomings in the required environmental review (under the National Environmental Policy Act – NEPA).

These are “abuses”, and banks and financial services firms involved may be complicit in these violations by the nature of their financing, S&R investors note. Their involvement in the project financing could impact their brands and reputations and relationships with society. And so S&R shareholders are taking action.

Boston Common Asset Management, Storebrand Asset Management (in Norway) and First Peoples Worldwide developed an Investor Statement to Banks Financing the DAPL. The statement — being signed on to by other investors — is intended to encourage banks and lenders to support the Rock Sioux Tribe’s request for re-routing the pipeline to not violate — “invade” — their treaty-protected territory. The violations pose a clear risk, SRI shareholders are saying.

The banks involved include American, Dutch, German, Chinese, Japanese, and Canadian institutions.  They in turn are owned by shareholders, public sector agencies, and various fiduciaries — “Universal Owners,” we would say.

The banks include: Bayerische Landesbank (Germany); BBVA (Argentina); Credit Agricole (France); TD Securities (Canada); Wells Fargo; ABN AMRO (The Netherlands); Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ; and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, and others.

The shareholders utilizing the Investor Statement say they recognize that banks have a contractual obligation with the respect to their transactions — but — they could use their influence to support the Tribe’s request for a re-route…and reach a “peaceful solution” acceptable to all parties.

As The Washington Post reported on January 24th, soon after the Trump Administration settled in, President Trump signed Executive Orders to revive the DAPL and the Keystone XL pipelines. “Another step in his effort to dismantle former President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy,” as the Post put it.

One Executive Order directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to “review and approve in an expedited manner” the DAPL. Days later the Corps made their controversial decision, on February 7th reversing course granting Energy Transfer Partners their easement. This week the remaining protestors were removed from the site (some being arrested).

The sustainable & responsible & impact investment community is not sitting by to watch these egregious events, as we see in the Investor Statements to the banks involved. The banks are on notice — there are risks here for you.

* * * * * * * *

May be what is happening in the asset management and project lending activities related to the project is the IBG / YBG worldview of some in the financial services world:  I’ll Be Gone / You’ll Be Gone when all of this hits the fan one day.  (Like the massive Ogalala Aquifer being contaminated by a pipeline break. The route of the extension is on the ground above and on the reservation’s lake bed.  Not to mention the threats to the above ground Missouri River, providing water downstream to U.S. states and cities.)

* * * * * * * *

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P:  (NYSE:ETP)  This is a Master Limited Partnership based in Texas.  Founded in 1995, the company has 71,000 miles of pipelines carrying various products. The company plans to build other major pipelines — the Rover Project — to carry product from the shale regions (Marcellus and Utica) across the Northern U.S. state east of the Mississippi.  ETP LP acquired Sunoco (remember them?).

Mutual Funds – Bond Holders – other key fiduciaries with brands of their own to protect — are funding the operations of ETP LP.

Brand names of equity holders include Oppenheimer; Goldman Sachs Asset Management; CalPERS; JPMorgan Chase.  Bond holders include Lord Abbett, PIMCO, Vanguard.  There are 567 institutional owners — fiduciaries — with some 45% of ownership, according to Morningstar. Partners include Marathon Petroleum Company (NYSE:MPC) and Enbridge (NYSE:ENB). (Bloomberg News – August 2, 2016 – both firms put $2 billion in the project and related work.)

The Partnership used to have an “Ownership” explanation on its web site — now it’s disappeared. But you can review some of it in Google’s archived web site pages here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.energytransfer.com/ownership_overview.aspx&num=1&strip=1&vwsrc=0

* * * * * * * *

We are seeing in developments every day (like these above with non-governmental strategies and actions) that hold out promise for corporate and societal sustainability advocates and sustainable investment professionals that with — or without — public sector support, the Forward Momentum continue to build.

We’ll share news and opinion with you — let us know your thoughts, and the actions that you / your organization is taking, to continue the momentum toward building a better future…a more sustainable nation and world.

Out the Seventh Generation, as the Native American tribes are doing out in the American West in protecting their Treaty lands.  In that regard we could say, a promise is a promise — the Federal and state governments should uphold promises made in treaties.  Which are covered as a “guarantee” by the U.S. Constitution that some folk in politics like to wave around for effect.

FYI — this is Article VI:  “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”

In the American West & Midwest: Coal-fired Electricity-Generating Plants to Close

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

February 22, 2017

Momentum Forward! – 2017

Some good news to share:  Several large American coal-fired electric utility plant operators are abandoning the burning of coal and moving to natural gas and renewables to generate electricity.  This news was reported by The Washington Post on February 14th. Headline:  “The West’s largest coal-fired power plan is closing. not even Trump can save it.”

Top of the news: a plant in Arizona that is the largest coal-fired facility in the western part of the United States (the 2,250-MW Navajo Generation Station outside Page, AZ) will be de-commissioned by the owners/operators at the end of 2019 — decades before expected, said the Post.

In the era of low natural gas prices, the use of coal would cost more to produce electric power, which would be passed on to the rate base. The US EPA had listed the plant as the #3 of the major carbon-emitting facilities.

The facility is operated by the Salt River Project, utility companies and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation*. The facility serves the Phoenix area.

The downside:  members of the Navajo and Hopi tribes would (1) lose their jobs in the Kayenta Mine that provides that provides the coal, and (2) the tribes will lose certain royalty payments.  Cautionary note:  The tribes of other operators could step up to continue operations.

* * * * * * * *

And less than a month earlier, in the State of Ohio the Dayton Power & Light Company and the Sierra Club reached agr3eement to close two plants (Killen and Stuart) which are coal-fired facilities. These will close in mid-2018. Stuart is a 2,440-MW plant; Killen is 666-MW.

Dayton Power & Light will develop solar power facilities to generate about half of the 555-MW by 2022.

The state’s Public Utilities Commission has the plan for its approval from DP&L.  This is good news for environmental NGOs and Ohio consumers; rate payers would be paying more for their electric power with coal — and be breathing in the results of coal-burning.

All of this, of course, comes as President Trump continues to promise to bring back coal mining, and signed an Executive Order to remove the obstacle for mining companies to dump wastes into surface waters (something that President Obama moved to prevent).

The shift from coal to natural gas: Forward Momentum in 2017 for sustainability!

* * * * * * * *

Footnote: About the Bureau of Land Reclamation*, from its web site:  Established in 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation is best known for the dams, powerplants, and canals it constructed in the 17 western states. These water projects led to homesteading and promoted the economic development of the West. Reclamation has constructed more than 600 dams and reservoirs including Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and Grand Coulee on the Columbia River.

The Bureau is  the largest wholesaler of water in the country, bringing water to more than 31 million people, and provided one-out-of-five Western farmers (140,000) with irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland that produce 60% of the nation’s vegetables and 25% of its fruits and nuts.

 

Doing the Right Things in Business — Making the Business Case – Making the Financial Case — Also Incorporating the Moral Case?

It’s an age-old topic of discussion:  Where in American business do the issues of morality, ethical behaviors, and “fair and equitable” fit in?  Andrew Winston, author of the best-selling “Green to Gold,” explores the topic (“morality”) in an essay on Sustainable Brands’ “New Metrics” web platform.

Morality:  moralizing; degree of conforming to moral principles.  So — in exploring the subject of morality in business, Andrew Winston thinks managers should crank the “moral” arguments into making-the-business case-for-corporate-sustainability discussions.  Making-the-financial-case (“investors want to know…”) is occurring more frequently now with many more mainstream investors focused on the firm’s ESG performance and the sustainability journey of especially large-cap enterprises.

“This is the right thing to do…” may be the persuasive argument in making the business case to decision-makers.  The moral positions of companies and their leaders are facing greater scrutiny now, says Winston.  Will companies defend LGBT rights — or protect immigrant employees?  Will they publicly argue for greater attention and action on climate change issues?  (It’s the right thing to do, many of you, dear readers, will agree.)

In our Top Story, author Andrew Winston sets out four “buckets” of arguments as to how the initiatives companies pursue create value — and three “mainstream” arguments (have some element of making-the-business-case, such as “short-term financial wins”).  The fourth argument — improve the shared commons —  and is it time to broaden how we talk about sustainability and bring in a moral dimension.

The traditional business case is still critical – but broadening the arguments in making the sustainability business case has Winston wondering if a combined logic or “good for business” and “good for the soul” will work.  He welcomes your thoughts after reading the essay.

Governance & Accountability Institute, Inc. is now in the 10th year of operations.  When we founded G&A back in 2007, we adopted the tagline:  Helping our clients do the right things for the right reasons.  That’s guided us to 2017 and benefited many of our corporate clients and our partners-in-progress.

Is it Time to Add Morality to the Business Case for Sustainability?
(Monday – February 06, 2017)
Source: Sustainable Brands – Every manager (or consultant) who has pitched an initiative under the banner of “sustainability” has faced the same question nearly every time: What’s the business case?

State Street CEO to Boards of Companies in Portfolio: Disclose More About the Impact of Climate Change on Your Business — Be More Transparent…and More

State Street Corp is one of the world’s leading asset managers, with US$2.47 trillion in AUM.  State Street Global Advisors CEO Ron O’Hanley in late-January sent a message to the boards of directors of public companies whose stock is in State Street portfolios:  SSGA is increasing focus on climate change, safety, workplace diversity and various other ESG issues.  Especially climate change.  Tell us more about what you are doing.

How?  The State Street Global Advisors CEO is asking, how is the board [of the company] preparing the enterprise for the impacts of climate change?  He is communicating to these directors that it is necessary for boards to disclose more about those plans.  The CEO’s letter was accompanied by a description of the framework that SSGA uses to evaluate public companies’ sustainability efforts.

In this week’s first Top Story, the highlights of the approach are described for you. Three criteria are used to evaluate and rank companies — as Tier One, Two and Three.  Tier One companies satisfy the three criteria.  The results are reflected in the proxy voting of SSGA, the #3 asset manager of ETF’s in the USA (Exchange Traded Funds).

There were 177 companies in the portfolio that SSGA evaluated in 2016; a mere 7% qualified as Tier One.  Tier Two totals 72%, which meant that companies had a sustainability program but had not integrated it into its overall business strategy, articulated how ESG factors affected long-term strategies, or established long-term goals aligned with ESG strategy. (Tier Three companies were described as not doing anything ESG-wise, 21% of companies in the portfolio, according to the Think Advisor story.)

Company boards and C-suite should consider that State Street is an active player in the coming proxy voting season.  SSGA supported 46% of climate-related proposals in 2016.  That’s important when you consider the competition:  the vote count was zero (voting) at Vanguard, American Funds, Black Rock and Fidelity — a source of concern and a growing level of activism on the issue among sustainable & responsible investing advocates.

In an interview with Bloomberg’s top environmental reporter, Emily Chasan in January (our second Top Story below), SSGA CEO O’Hanley said:  “We’re asking companies to make sure they are identifying and communicating both their risks and opportunities.  Climate change may be the poster child for risk out there.”

The Bloomberg Business Week story has a neat chart for you, with the voting records of “shares of proxy votes in favor of climate-related proposals.”  The Top 20 of the world’s asset managers’ voting records are presented.  State Street is the fifth-ranked (at the top).

Stay Tuned, as we often say, to the coming 2017 Proxy Voting Season at public companies.  ESG issues are front and center at some large corporate issuers and the action will be in the maneuvering around the shareholder-offered resolutions on climate change and other ESG issues by the entire voting body.

Story links below:

State Street Wants Companies to Focus on Sustainability
(Wednesday – February 01, 2017)
Source: Think Advisor – State Street Global Advisors, the third-largest provider of ETFs, wants more companies to incorporate sustainability practices into their long-term business strategies and will consider such corporate efforts in its upcoming

State Street Asks Boards to Disclose More on Climate Preparation
(January 26, 2017)
Source: BloombergBusinessweek – Climate change is no longer listed as a top issue on the White House website, but it’s very much at the forefront for $2.47 trillion asset manager State Street Corp.

The 100 Most Sustainable Global Companies According to Corporate Knight Analysis

Every year the Canadian-headquartered firm Corporate Knights (publishing, research) ranks “the world’s most sustainable companies,” from a universe of 4,000 global enterprises with market cap of at least US$2 billion each. The research team applies 14 metrics in its analysis of “corporate sustainability” to evaluate the management and governance of the sustainability journey.

This year’s list was unveiled at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos.  Among the top 100 “most sustainable companies” are firms headquartered in the USA, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, France, the United Kingdom, Finland, Brazil, and other nations.  The firm ranked #1 by Corporate Knights is Siemens (Germany’s giant industrial manufacturer); #2 is Storebrand ASA (Sweden-insurance); and #3, Cisco – IT leader — USA.  In the Top 10 rankings, there are two US firms (Cisco and Johnson & Johnson); in the next 10 rankings, there is one (McCormick & Co); and in the next 10 (#20 to #30) there is one – Allergan (healthcare).  Overall, the USA had the most companies in the rankings: 19.

Among the key metrics for this important Global 100 ranking by Corporate Knights:  the level of executive compensation.  The ratio of CEO pay to average worker is considered.  This is interesting to note going forward; in 2017 under Dodd-Frank rules (unless the rule is rescinded in some way) American companies will have to start publishing the ratio of CEO pay comparisons to the median worker. The Glassdoor web site in August 2015 stated that this ratio is 204 times (CEO to median pay).  That ratio will be reported by US public companies beginning this year.

The Global 100 Most Sustainable Companies list and background information is in our Top Story this week by Forbes staffer Jeff Kauflin, who writes on management and leadership.  He’s written for Fast Company and Business Insider in the past.

There is more information at Corporate Knights (“the Magazine for Clean Capitalism”).

Read the Januray 17, 2017 Forbes article: The World’s Most Sustainable Companies 2017

An Attendee’s Experience and Review of G&A Institute’s / Global Change Associates’ Sustainable Finance Certificate Program at Baruch College/CUNY

Guest Post by Ling Qin – G&A Institute Data Partner Reports Analyst

LingQinG&A Institute’s Sustainable Finance Certificate Program, developed in partnership with Global Change Associates, was hosted on 14 December, 2016 at Baruch College, City University of New York, in New York City.

This was a very rewarding learning and networking experience for me. Although I have the primary professional foundation for the necessary sustainable skills and knowledge, this one-day intensive seminar provided me with a broader background and more concrete view of different sustainability frameworks, ESG ratings and sustainable trends.

Leading experts in the sustainable finance gathered together at the Baruch College Vertical Campus to offer their first-hand sustainability industrial insights. Experts participating as lecturers came from Governance and Accountability Institute (which is GRI’s Exclusive Data Partner in UK and US), the Baruch Business School, MSCI, SASB, Bloomberg, Global Change Associates, and other organizations.

Mr. Samuel Block from MSCI introduced his company’s ESG products, their ESG rating methodology and ESG rating process. Not only does he introduce how MSCI’s ESG research carries out, but also informed us [the course participants] of lots of resources of ESG data.

Those important ESG datasets from company public reporting, media searches, regulatory, academic and NGO’s (third parties) enables MSCI and other interested parties to do solid analysis focusing on the most material aspects of companies’ ESG performance.

The lively discussion in the Q&A session cast light on the reactions from MSCI when facing push backs from companies with low ESG scores. After this all-day series of lectures, I understood (for example) that MSCI would include the controversies in their final reports presented to the institutional investors, which is a very good signal of the importance of ESG scores and reputation and the independence of the MSCI’s evaluation.

Another impressive section was around the topic of “ESG Equity Fundamentals Data Analytics” provided by Mr. Hideki Suzuki from Bloomberg’s ESG Group.

He showed participants how to explore and conduct cross-analysis of the ESG performance by using Bloomberg Terminal step-by-step. Bloomberg Terminal covers ESG score summary for companies’ historical trends and their comparable peers’ performance.

For the environmental performance, the GHG intensity indicator in the Bloomberg Terminal is introduced as a good example.

The indicators for social performance in the Bloomberg Terminal include company’s productivity through human capital management, total recordable incident rate, employee turnover rate and etc.

Independence of the board, diversity of executives and executive compensation are outstanding indicators for the corporate governance performance.

Mr. Hideki also highlighted that “ratios” are the key to allow researchers to do apple-to-apple comparable studies, which is an important tip that all sustainable professionals need to pay attention to.

By the end of the day, I not only benefitted from all vibrant sustainable knowledge- sharing, but also feel grateful to connect with experienced sustainable professionals.

All the guest speakers are very willing to share their opinions, slides and contacts. I very much enjoyed an intellectually-challenging learning experience and an intimate learning atmosphere for the whole day.  I recommend this course to my professional colleagues who are seeking greater knowledge in the expanding sustainable investing field.

Linq Qin has served as a G&A Institute GRI data partner corporate reporting analyst.

# # #

Save-the-Date031517_squaread

SAVE THE DATE
The next session for the G&A Institute / Global Change Associates “Corporate ESG for Investment & Finance Professionals Certification” will be hosted at Baruch College/CUNY on March 15, 2017.  Click here for more information and to register at Eventbrite.

Update 2017 – Forward Momentum! For Sustainability – Pope Francis Set the Tone in 2016

by Hank Boerner – Chairman, G&A Institute

Here we are in the year 2017 — and I see momentum coming into this new calendar year for continuing many of the positive trends for corporate sustainability / citizenship / responsibility managers, and sustainable investment professionals that I explored and commented on in 2016.

I set out more than 50 of these trends in my collection of commentaries — “Trends Converging! — The Convergence of Important CSR – ESG – SRI – Sustainability Trends in the Year 2016 and Beyond.”

In my first post of 2017 I explained some of these trends and provided background on the many experts and thought leaders that shared their perspectives with us on key topics and issues.  Going forward, I am going to update the trends material with current news and developments and shared perspectives from third parties.

I see this as continuing momentum for the positive trends — even in the face of hostile action that is anticipated in our nation’s capital.  So I am positioning my comments as “Momentum 2017 – Sustainability Forward!” for corporate sustainability and sustainable investing professionals.  And for NGOs and other stakeholders.

The 2016 trends are available for you in total on our G&A Institute web site (under Research menu).  The updates going forward will include the original materials that I saw as being forward-moving and in many instances helping to make “the business case,” “the investing case,” and so on.

* * * * * * * *

Here’s the first update for 2017 and the original perspectives shared in 2016.

January 2017 – Momentum – Forward!

Thousands of American Roman Catholics have petitioned President-elect Donald Trump to urge him to “take swift and meaningful action on climate change,” including honoring commitments and pledges made by President Barack Obama.

The Catholic Climate Covenant petition asked the incoming president to “demonstrate bold leadership” on climate on three fronts:

  • Keep the U.S. commitment to the Paris Agreement and go forward on the U.S. pledge to cut GhG emissions to 26% / 28% of the 2005 levels by year 2025.
  • Keep the U.S. pledge of $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund to help developing countries address climate change (mitigation, adjustments), including the development of sustainable energy resources.
  • Go forward with the Federal government’s Clean Energy Plan, and the U.S. EPA’s rules designed to help reduce carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. (Note that some states are implementing their state-level plan as mandated in the Obama Administration approach. A Federal court put the plan on ice.)

The Catholic coalition cited Pope Francis’s Laudato Si (encyclical)  — On Care for Our Common Home – to remind the President-elect and his minions of the importance to the Roman Catholic Church worldwide of climate change and environmental and social issues to be addressed.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) strongly supports a national carbon pollution standard — as one way to move forward to implement the Paris (COP 21) Agreement of 2016.

The Catholic Climate Covenant is gathering signatures for its appeal to the new President and communicating its appeal on [his] favorite channels – social media!

The petition notes that before Pope Francis came to the USA in September 2015, a Public Religion Research Institute poll found three-out-of-four Catholics believed that the U.S. government should be more to address climate change. When white-only respondents were tallied, the percentage rose to 86%.

More recently (May 2016) a Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University showed the amount held steady, with 73% of American Catholics in favor of society taking steps to combat climate change.

The Covenant petition has been endorsed by the Global Catholic Climate Movement; the Leadership Conference of Women Religious; the Conference of Major Superiors of Men; the Sisters of Mercy; and the Franciscan Action Network.

And in January, the President-elect can expect to see more than 100 prayer vigils stages across the country and during his first 100 days in office. That way, there will be clear demonstration against his climate-skeptic appointments and for an environmentally-sustainable future.

* * * * * * * *

Here is the foundational perspective offered up in my trend-watching efforts in 2016:  Chapter # 44. Pope Paul and Perspectives and Actions the Roman Catholic Church Worldwide

There are an estimated 1 billion Catholics worldwide, and a huge infrastructure of the RC Church that can implement policies and practices. Worldwide, the Bishops of the Church among other things are traditional heads of local dioceses — there are 177 in the U.S.A. alone. There are “ecclesiastical provinces” organized in metropolitan area; these are usually headed by an archbishop (New York, Washington DC, Baltimore, etc.).

The Roman Catholic Church as a collective institution is one of the largest owners and holders of assets in the world, including properties, solid gold, bonds, cash, and equity investments, pension systems of various orders, Catholic charities, and healthcare systems.

Imagine the power that such an institution can bring to bear on challenges, in the world, in the United States and other large nations — especially when it focuses on a societal issue

The Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis, in May 2015, issued “Laudato Si,” the Encyclical Letter of the Holy Father, “On Care of Our Common Home.” Among other things to explain his position, he addressed a joint session of the U.S. Congress in September 2015. (Note that in the audience, 31% of Members are Catholic, as well as six of the nine Supreme Court Justices.) The speech received 37 standing ovations.

So what are the Pope’s concerns, expressed in the House of the People? Consider these:

• Climate change;
• addressing common needs;
• addressing risk to our common home (the Earth);
• addressing income inequality (especially in less-developed nations);
• the responsibility of richer nations; advancing justice and peace;
• the dignity of human life;
• job creation;
• business is a “noble vocation”;
• environmental challenges.

“We should have a culture of care,'” Pope Francis said, and “now is the time for action” to protect our planet.

The Pope’s 74-page letter “to the world” and especially to the Catholic faithful in all lands, addressed topics that are front-of-mind for sustainability professionals:

• Pollution and climate change are a threat to the world.
• Part of the cause is the residue of industrialization.
• Part of the cause is our throwaway society.
• The climate is a common good, belonging to all.
• Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. This affects drinking water, agriculture, energy and other activities.
• Climate change is a global problem, affecting environmental, social, economic, political, and distribution of goods.
• There are critical issues in water, biodiversity, global inequality.

Pope Francis called for a vision of “integral ecology,” one that seriously considers environmental, social and economic factors.

The Holy Father set out suggestions for “approach and action,” with dozens of specific steps that could be taken to address challenges and bring about integral ecology. It is in these specificities that action will come through the organs of the worldwide RC Church, and its billion adherents to the faith.

We should not underestimate the enormous power that will be applied in many direct, indirect and subtle ways to implement “Laudato Si,” the Holy Father’s vision of how his church can help to bring about significant changes in the global society.

Consider the work of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), the 35-year old faith-based investment coalition, whose 300 institutional members manage up to $100 billion in assets. ICCR is a value-driven organization “who view the management of their investments as a powerful catalyst for social change.” ICCR’s membership includes many RC Church institutional investors.

We can expect to see the Pope’s vision applied by ICCR institutional members in the areas of concern — corporate governance, domestic health, the environment (including global warming), fair lending, food access and safety, human rights, and water (including corporate water impacts).

I’m keeping in mind the century-long influence that another Pope had with his encyclical letter on labor rights, human rights,

This was Pope Leo XIII and his 1891 letter, “Rerum Novarum” — on “the Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor.” This addressed the conditions of the working classes as industrialization and the emergence of the modern capital markets gained momentum.

What resonates from that work for some today: “Remedy must be found quickly for the misery of wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class…” Through the decades since the start of the 20th Century, RC Church interests have been guided by Rerum Novarum’s dictates to the faithful.

Expect the vision of the present pope to serve RC Church interests in similar ways — with impacts being felt in discussion of climate change, global warming, the plight of the worker, income & wealth inequality, financial & economic fairness, and many more issues that are in the realms of the capital markets and the global corporate community.

Noting MSCI Research on Inequality

About the issues surrounding wealth and income inequality: MSCI recently projected important trends for 2016. In the firm’s “2016 ESG Trends to Watch” report, there is this observation:

According to the NGO Oxfam, at the end of 2014, 80 individuals owned the same wealth as the bottom half of all of the world population. (The number was 388 individuals in 2010.) This is not just a societal issue, MSCI points out. OECD estimates that that growing inequality has cumulatively cuts six to seven percentage points off U.S. economic growth in the United States, Italy and Sweden between 1990 and 2010. (The U.K., Finland and Norway cut in growth was higher, at nine percent.)

What needs more understanding, says MSCI in its report, is how corporations feed into inequality (through job cuts, pushing down of wages, maximizing shareholder return) which over time could impact economic growth and stability.

* * * * * * * *

So – in the year 2016 we’ll be monitoring the growing intensity of the public debate about wealth and income inequality, in the presidential race for sure (thanks to U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and his positions on the subject), in the fiduciary concerns raised (especially by activist investors), and in the restlessness of the population if the anger rises and targets are selected (that is, those perceived to be responsible for growing inequality in developed and developing countries).

The actions of the worldwide Roman Catholic Church, following the Pope’s positions on inequality, will be important to watch in the months ahead.

The statements and actions of investors will also be worth watching. The public dialogue on inequality will have many dimensions, depending on the voices raised. As responsible investment thought leader (and G&A Institute Fellow) Steve Viederman notes, “…where you sit will determine where you stand on an issue.” (“Sitting” meaning your affiliation, where you sit during the business day.)

* * * * * * * *

What are your thoughts?  Let us know!  Send me an email at: hboerner@ga-institute.com.