Monthly Archives: June 2022

Sustainability Challenges and Reporting Frameworks in the Chemical Industry

Posted on by
Reply

Chemical Industry Challenges

By Lauryn Power, G&A Institute Analyst-Intern

Overview:

The chemical sector faces the third-highest number of environmental and social risks of all sectors, based on a 2020 analysis published by S&P Global. In the U.S., the chemical sector generates around $758 billion annually, contributing 25% of the U.S. GDP and providing many raw materials for industries including agriculture, consumer goods, and pharmaceuticals.

Major Sustainability Challenges:

According to a report from Ecovadis partner DFGE, the chemical sector faces a large number of sustainability challenges including scrutiny over impacts on water quality and discharge of effluents. It can be very costly to remove impurities from wastewater.

Chemical production is often energy intensive and leads to significant GHG emissions. There are many chemical processes which require high temperatures often generated by fossil fuels.

There is major concern over worker and consumer health and safety in producing and using the products. There are chemicals which are still being used despite being hazardous. These chemicals are often supplied to other industries and can be polluted into water streams, causing health problems for workers, local residents, and ecosystems. The products themselves can remain in the environment for centuries, possibly forever.

In 1985, the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICAA) created the Responsible Care program. This initiative’s main goals are to promote safe chemical management, promote environmental health and safety, and contribute to sustainable development. By 2021, 580 chemical companies (96% of the industry) had committed to the program globally. Many of the Council’s sustainability recommendations align with chemical companies’ plans. They are often focused on prevention rather than mitigation. They have extensive plans for spills, contaminations, and waste disposal which are all regulated in the United States. These plans also include details for worker health and safety, which require hours of training before workers can perform hazardous work.

Many chemical companies are working towards improving the composition of plastics so they are more readily recyclable, as well as developing more accessible methods of recycling to more efficiently recycle the plastics that already exist. They are pushing to use renewable energy in as many operations as possible and to continue innovating in that sector. Additionally, they are focusing on creating strong plans for wastewater disposal, whether it is disposed carefully or if it is treated to be reused.

ESG Reporting:

All chemical manufacturers in the U.S. are required to report certain practices and metrics to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, including the types of chemicals they are producing.

In terms of voluntary ESG reporting, there are many different frameworks chemical companies can use to build their reports.

Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB):

SASB provides sector-specific recommendations for disclosures on ESG metrics for chemical companies. These disclosures are what SASB considers to be financially material topics to the industry. They require disclosure of global Scope 1 greenhouse gas emissions and a discussion on plans to manage emissions both short-term and long-term. Air quality emissions of key hazardous air pollutants should be disclosed. Energy, water, and hazardous waste management require the specification of the amount used/generated. The water disclosure requires a further discussion of the company’s strategy to reduce potential damages from wastewater.

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI):

GRI is the most common sustainability reporting framework. While it does not currently provide specific chemical sector disclosures, it is planning on expanding the list of sector specific disclosures to include chemicals in the next few years. Still, many of the general disclosures are applicable to chemical companies and touch on some of their most critical issues. Chemical companies should first perform the GRI’s materiality assessment to help them determine which disclosures are most impactful to their business.

Some general disclosures chemical companies may report on are: GRI 303: Water and Effluents requiring companies to state the amount of water withdrawn, by source and the amount discharged; and GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety requiring companies to state the type of required trainings for workers to do certain hazardous work, the number of work-related injuries, a description of the company’s strategy for managing worker health and safety, and other key information/metrics on this topic.

Other potentially important disclosures include: GRI 306: Waste which covers hazardous waste disposal methods; and GRI 307: Environmental Compliance which would involve chemical companies required disclosures by the EPA and other actions taken to keep operations within legal standards. Note: The updated 2021 GRI Standards, officially in effect in 2023, include environmental compliance as a general disclosure, meaning reporting on this topic will be required for accordance with the Standards.

Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD):

While TCFD does not provide chemical-specific disclosures, the general disclosures about climate-related risks and opportunities are applicable to chemical companies. The TCFD framework as a whole approaches sustainability from a risk perspective, which helps chemical companies directly state the most critical components of their businesses and their action plans to mitigate that risk.

In 2019, TCFD held a forum with five major chemicals companies to discuss how to improve sustainability reporting in the chemical sector. One finding was that disclosures should include more specific metrics to measure sustainable development and that companies need a stronger approach to governance with sustainability in mind. For example, given that TCFD is focused on financial risk disclosures, the forum suggested adding metrics such as revenues from low-carbon products and low-carbon solution R&D expenditures. For strategy disclosures, the forum recommended having more scenario analysis to better understand the impact of different climate-change strategies.

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

Chemical companies can play a major role in contributing to the success of the UN SDGs. The goals that the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) has identified as most critical for the chemicals sector are shown here.

How can the sector impact these goals? For Goal 2 – Zero Hunger, the chemical sector can make a huge impact on sustainable food development by producing more efficient fertilizers to boost crop yields. For Goal 7 – Affordable and Clean Energy, the sector can develop important materials used for solar panels, wind turbines, and carbon capture technology. More information on how the sector can support the SDGs can be found here.

Lauryn PowerABOUT THE AUTHOR

Lauryn Power is a G&A Institute Analyst-Intern, currently pursuing a MS in Sustainability in the Urban and Environmental Planning department at Tufts University. She has a BS in Chemistry from the University of Virginia where she also earned a minor in Mathematics. She also received a certificate in Business Fundamentals at the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia.

She has worked in various chemistry research labs and has a scientific background on climate change. She also has experience in sustainable fashion. She interned for the U.S. Green Chamber of Commerce doing research on current issues with fast fashion globally.

Through her educational background and experiences in the industry, she hopes to work in the intersection of sustainability and business, helping corporations to improve their practices and find ways to make their business more sustainable.

Is Your Mutual Fund or ETF Really “Green” or “Sustainable”? How Do You Know? More Disclosure by Fund Managers and Advisors May Be Coming…

Posted on by
Reply

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

What is it about an investable product – a mutual fund, an exchange traded fund (ETF) – that would qualify it as an “ESG” or “sustainable investment” offering to the retail or institutional investor?

That’s a question getting more attention recently.

S&P Global has issued a report that says only 12 percent of so-called “green” or “environmental” investment funds are on track to meet the global climate goals agreed to at the Paris Agreement / COP 21 meetings in 2015.

The goals agreed to by the community of almost 200 nations at that time: try to limit the global temperature to below 2 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels and aim for limiting the increase to 1.5C.

We are sharing some analysis of the S&P report by Mark Segal as published in ESG Today (he’s the founder of the web site).

He explains: S&P Global looked at about 12,000 equity funds and ETFs with US$20 trillion in total market value. Findings: about 300 funds (with $350 billion total valuation) used “green” in their name or investment objectives.

Looking then at the holdings (equities of corporations) using the S&P Global Trucost Paris Alignment Data for 17,000 companies in the universe of 12,000 funds, only 11% were really aligned with the Paris Agreement goals.

What about the smaller universe of 300 (the “green” funds)? Only about 12% were on track to meet Paris goals.

S&P Global noted that some funds are screening out publicly-traded fossil fuel companies for portfolios, including renewable energy companies, and some are engaging with portfolio companies to urge the firms de-carbonize their operations.

Conclusion: “Our analysis,” reports S&P, “points to a systemic issue. Few funds, even those that describe themselves as using green or climate-specific language, are on track to meet the goal of the Paris Agreement. Understanding the trajectory is an important step toward planning for a low-carbon future.”

The marketing of mutual funds and ETFs as “green” is being closely looked at by the Securities & Exchange Commission. SEC is focused on “enhancing ESG investment practices” of certain capital market players.

The agency in May proposed amendments to rules and reporting requirements of investment advisors and investment companies (that manage mutual funds and ETFs) to “promote consistent, comparable, and reliable information for investors” about funds’ and advisors’ incorporation of ESG factors.

The proposed rule would aim to categorize types of ESG investment strategies and require funds and advisors to be more specific in disclosures (such as in prospectuses, annual reports, brochures) to inform investors about ESG strategies being pursued.

Funds with strategies focused on the consideration of environmental factors would be required to disclose the greenhouse gas emissions associated with their portfolios. (That is, the GHG emissions of companies in the assembled portfolios of the mutual funds or ETFs.)

And, funds that use proxy voting and engagement with corporate issuers would be required to disclose their voting and engagement with companies on ESG-related matters.

Morningstar rates “sustainable mutual funds” among the thousands of funds rated by the firm’s analysts and its Sustainalytics unit.

Here’s a look into the challenges fund companies may face if the SEC rules are adopted: “This year has been difficult for many ESG funds,” writes Morningstar’s Katherine Lynch. “After years of solid performance, sustainable investing mutual funds have been roughed up, but a handful of strategies have been able to outperform.”

Which ones? Those holding energy stocks, which some investors in ESG try to avoid. Energy stocks are now outperforming, and most sustainable funds hold little or no oil companies in portfolio because of the connection of oil and gas consumption and climate change.

The conversation about “sustainable investing” and the criteria used by mutual fund management companies is sure to get more complicated in the days ahead.

Our G&A Institute team will continue to monitor developments and keep you updated on the changes to the mutual fund / ETF disclosure requirements.

Here are Top Stories for you to learn more:

  1. Less Than 10% of Climate Funds are Aligned with Global Decarbonization Goals: S&P (ESG Today )https://www.esgtoday.com/nearly-90-of-green-funds-are-not-aligned-with-global-climate-goals-sp/
  2. SEC Proposed to Enhance Disclosures by Investment Advisors and Investment Companies About ESG Investment Practices: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-92
  3. 2022’s Top Sustainable Fund Weather a Tough Market: https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1097780/2022s-top-sustainable-funds-weather-a-tough-market



ESG from a Corporate Vantage Point – Anniversary Update

Posted on by
Reply

Important Perspectives shared by Pamela Styles, Fellow G&A Institute

Foreword by Hank Boerner, Chairman & Chief Strategist, G&A Institute
One year ago, the National Investor Relations Institute (NIRI) IRUpdate quarterly magazine published its Winter 2021 edition that was dedicated to ESG topics and issues — which G&A Institute shared with publishers’ permission.  G&A’s executive leaders and IR professional and G&A Fellow Pam Styles each contributed an article to the edition to provide three different perspectives and vantage points.

It is with great pride that we congratulate our IR Fellow, Pam Styles, for being named Gold Winner of the DeWitt C. Morrill Editorial Excellence Awards for her article in that magazine, titled: “A Practical Approach to ESG From a Corporate Vantage Point”.

She was be honored by NIRI and presented the award in-person at the NIRI Annual Conference which held June 5-7 in Boston, MA.

G&A Institute coverage of many rapid changes across ESG-related issues bridges two important spheres of influence in our modern economy – the corporate sector and capital markets.  

To that end, Pam has taken time to summarize and briefly update three topics touched on in her original article – SEC, ESG Raters and Voluntary Frameworks – to highlight some major announcements and trends in the last year that should be useful to corporate executive and investor relations perspective.  Here is Pam’s April 2022 award-winning commentary:

Anniversary Update
The full title of my original article one year ago, “A Practical Approach to ESG from a Corporate Vantage Point”, started with “A Practical Approach…” and continued with “…to ESG from a Corporate Vantage Point”.

The reason for this was and still is that the ESG landscape has been changing so rapidly as to be humanly impossible for any one person or company to stay on top of without practical focus and strategy of approach.

Much of that article about launching and maintaining a successful company ESG reporting program, including supporting strategies and resources, remains relevant today.  The most important thing is for companies to be organized and deliberate to make sure that, no matter how much or how little ESG-related policies, disclosure or other communications they can provide, it all can be easily found via the company’s website by human stakeholders and AI research tools alike.  This is to make sure that the company is getting as full credit as possible for all it is doing and communicating with regard to ESG matters.

The article goes into far greater specifics and, even one year later, is worth the (re)read.

Three topics warrant brief update to highlight some of the major announcements that have occurred just in the one year since the article was published – as listed in the table below.

Major Announcements in One Year
Roughly Spanning Winter 2021 to Winter 2022
(Partial list only)

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Major ESG Raters and Rankers1 Voluntary Reporting Frameworks1
May 20, 2022 – deadline for comment letters on Pending rule proposal on climate risk and GHG disclosure.  Proposes TCFD-like reporting requirements within Reg S-K and financial metrics within Reg S-X, with phase-in 2023-2026 based on registrant filer status. Additional Highlights. April 24, 2022 – Crowded ESG Ratings Landscape Sows Confusion for Investors, the days of largely unregulated ESG ratings providers may be numbered. January 2023 – GRI “Universal Standards” will go into effect, which will include supply chain. Additional Highlights.
March 9, 2022 – Pending rule proposal on cybersecurity. Summary sheet.  (Data Security and Privacy falls under “S” of ESG) February 2022 – call for ESG ratings regulation in ESG Ratings and ESG Data published by Accenture UK and the International Regulatory Strategy Group (IRSG).  Reason: due to huge variation and significant inconsistencies, lack of transparency, frustration and confusion for reporting companies, conflicts of interest with fee models, and a low correlation for ESG ratings (as low as 0.38) compared to credit ratings (as high as 0.99), all which impact investment decisions. March 24, 2022 – The IFRS Foundation and GRI announce they are taking the latest step toward a more closely aligned set of global ESG reporting frameworks.  Part of global moves toward consolidation.
July 26, 2021 – earlier call by International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) initiate for ESG ratings regulation. GRI and IFRS are just one example of multiple frameworks that have been announcing collaborations and harmonization efforts.  A common reporting standard may not happen for a while.  Additional Highlights.

1 As defined in “The Complexity of ESG Reporting and Emerging Convergence Trends”, by Louis Coppola, EVP & Co-Founder, Governance & Accountability Institute

Rapid Changes
The U.S. has been rapidly catching-up with the UK and EU in terms of ESG public discourse in general.  As simplified in his article “The Surging Volume and Velocity of ESG Investing”, Hank Boerner, Chairman & Chief Strategist of Governance & Accountability Institute, indicated 2020 was the year of Human Capital Management focus and 2021 would be the year of Climate Change/ Climate Crisis focus.

Looking ahead, I predict that 2022 may end up being a year of Practical Stress Testing. Global dislocation (economic, human, energy, security, etc.) brought on by protracted pandemic conditions in China and the Russia-Ukraine military conflict with implications to energy, natural and agricultural resources, are both critically affecting the global supply chain and have opened a lot of eyes as to the speed at which ESG net-global progress may actually be being made.

Certain realities and practicalities seem to have been missed in haste to press ESG initiatives that need to be addressed.  Here’s to hoping honest brokers can be up to the task.

In the meantime, a lot of companies are still in ESG journey catch-up mode, especially in the U.S.  With ESG here to stay, it is important for companies to make as much progress as they can in areas of ESG strategy, execution and disclosure that make sense to address at this time.  But keep an eye on major announcements and build flexibility into your company’s ESG communications and disclosure capabilities – as a lot of changes are yet to come.

About the Author
Pamela Styles is long-time Fellow of G&A Institute and principal of Next Level Investor Relations LLC, a strategic consultancy with dual Investor Relations and ESG / Sustainability specialties.