Tag Archives: SASB

Finding a Way Forward So ESG Advocates and Critics Can Get On the Same Page

Posted on by
Reply

March 3, 2023

By Hank Boerner – Chair & Chief Strategist, G&A Institute

Woke! Woke!  And Anti-Woke!  The word is now an important part of the political and cultural conversation in such states as Florida, where it is becoming a vigorous political campaign cry.  Woke comes to Florida to die, the present governor eagerly proclaims. 

Where did the expression “woke” come from? Wikipedia offers us this explanation: “Woke is an adjective from African-American Vernacular English meaning [being] alert to racial prejudice and discrimination.”

Think about the impact of the tragedies of the George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Trye Nichols deaths and the founding of Black Lives Matter as importance pieces of the “alerts” to the Black communities across America. But woke moved to the mainstream as well. 

As the use of the term spread to a broader range of topic areas, we could say that more of the population is being “woke” — what this really is about is being “awakened” and “alert” to changes in certain areas of interest and importance in our business and personal lives.

Such as (one example) as the importance of ESG issues to asset managers and corporate leadership.  

Now, unbelievably, embrace of ESG in Corporate America and the financial markets is a “woke” thing  – something to be feared, says the governor of the Sunshine State.

The increasing awareness of the importance of ESG material issues accounts for the shift in focus beyond just the reported financial results by fiduciaries to consider an ever-widening range of corporate governance, environmental and societal issues. (Of course now including diversity, inclusion, equitable treatment for all stakeholders.)

Consideration of ESG is now a fundamental part of asset management and fiduciary duties in the U.S. and in Europe.  But — there is growing opposition to the success of sustainable investors (like asset managers embracing ESG.)  Really. 

We’ve been sharing news and perspectives about ESG and woke and the attacks by certain Red states attacks on both ESG and woke; these are strawmen for public sector leaders who now target and punish those asset managers adopting ESG analysis and methodologies in their management of clients’ assets.  

The issue now is front and center in the halls of Congress as well. 

The encouraging news there is that state pension fund managers are pushing back, recognizing that in their states ignoring ESG issues will cost their fund (with lower returns on investment). 

In the Harvard Business Review, Two authors put many of the issues in perspective for us as they offer possible solutions to rescue ESG from the Culture Wars. They are well versed in the many aspects of ESG, sustainable investing, and corporate sustainability.

One is former Harvard B-school professor Robert Eccles (now visiting professor of management practice at Said Business School, and a lifelong Democrat) and, Daniel Crowley, a long-time GOP leader who served as general counsel to House Speaker Newt Gingrich and who now leads the global financial services practice as K&L Gates LLP.

Bob Eccles is a founder of the Sustainable Accounting Standards Board (SASB); Daniel Crowley lead government relations efforts at the Nasdaq Stock Exchange and National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). They speak about ESG from a deep and varied background in financial, business, research, and public policy.

A few highlights of their shared perspectives in the HBR piece:

• The planned congressional hearings on ESG presents opportunity to put facts on the record and begin the process of working toward a bipartisan consensus to take the “political passion” out of ESG discussions. (The 2024 president and congressional contests are just getting underway.)

• The key will be to bring ESG definitions back to an original intention, “as a means for helping companies identify and communicate to investors the material, long-term risks they face from ESG-related issues”.

• Climate change is such a risk; fossil fuel companies for whom future revenues would be greatly reduced if governments start to tax carbon.

• For capital markets to properly allocate capital, investors need companies to disclose material investment risks. ESG, they write, is simply about identifying material risk factors that matter.

• The coming House hearings on ESG could be political theater — or a learning opportunity to clarify what ESG is/isn’t.

This HBR feature article is compelling reading for those on both sides of the ESG equation, for both ESG advocates and critics. Framing the hearings as explorations of not about being “woke” but on the importance of materiality is the way forward, the authors posit.

We urge your reading and sharing of Bob Eccles’ and Daniel Crowley’s enlightening perspectives.

It is unfortunate that the U.S. Culture Wars now drag anti-ESG views into the vital conversations and political theater about addressing the climate change crisis.

The team at G&A Institute will continue to monitor and share top-line results with you as these vital conversations (and shouting matches) focus on the importance of ESG. 


The Harvard Business Review article for your reading – tune in to the “hopes” and solutions of the authors:

Rescuing ESG from the Culture Wars (Harvard Business Review)

https://hbr.org/2023/02/rescuing-esg-from-the-culture-wars


ESG Reporting Frameworks & Standards – Continue to Multiply

Posted on by
Reply

Original:  October 14 2021

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

The number of ESG disclosure and reporting guidelines, frameworks and standards continues to expand – here comes the GRI Universal Standards, the SASB XRBL Taxonomy, and much more.

The range of available transparency tools is making it more challenging for corporate management and investors to navigate.

The ESG / Sustainability / Sustainable Investing lexicon for both publicly-traded companies and their providers of capital is today chock-a-block with acronyms and initials. GRI, SASB, TCFD, OECD, IIRC, SDG, PRI, UNGC, GRESB, WEF, IFRS, EFRAG, EC’s NFRD – you get the picture!

And there are a host of industry-focused standards (such as RBA, once known as EICC), IEPC, LEED).

The venerable player is the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), a comprehensive, ever-expanding, stakeholder-focused reporting framework created by global stakeholders over two decades ago with roots in Boston, in the Ceres Pledge of the early-1990s.

That pledge was created by SRI investors after the Exxon Valdez oil tanker disaster in Alaska and was intended to invite corporate managements to promise to do better in what is now ESG performance.

The first two signatories of significant size were General Motors and Sun Oil. G&A team members were involved in encouraging firms to sign on to the pledge in those early years.

By 1999-2000 the first corporate environmental, responsibility, et al reports were being published in the United States and Europe (a few dozen appeared in the first round with the first generation of the GRI framework, G1).

Over the ensuing years the GRI framework evolved and matured on through G3, G4 and finally in recent years to a more formal standards-based approach. And those modular standards for ESG reporting are continuing to evolve as GRI enters its third decade.

The news today about GRI is focused on the launch of what are called “Universal Standards”, which in modular form will be in place for corporate and institutional reports to use if they are going to report in accordance with the GRI Standards.

The now-familiar Core and Comprehensive will go away; it will still be OK to use “GRI-Referenced” (a less strict version which references parts of the GRI reporting standard) in reporting following the Universal Standards, which will go into effect in January 2023.

The new GRI Universal Standards align with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Human Rights, the OECD Governance Standards, and the International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN).

The elements of the Universal Standards to keep in mind are these: what is the impact of the corporation on society, and society on the corporation; materiality of disclosures; due diligence on the part of reporters.

Keep in mind the standards are broad and focused on stakeholder disclosure, of course including providers of capital as stakeholders. All companies can use the Universal Standards to communicate the firm’s impact on the broader society. (Think: how does your firm connect with people?)

Supply chain operations are an important part of GRI reporting going forward. Consider, as one expert recently explained, that of the large, multi-national enterprises of the developed world, more than 90 percent of production is beyond the company’s walls, out there in the world of non-company producers (many in less-developed nations as well as in China).

The European Union is considering adopting corporate sustainability reporting that would use the GRI Universal Standards for mandated disclosure by all companies operating in the 27 EU states (with certain qualifications as to size and other considerations).

GRI standards-focused disclosure is expected to include story-telling and metrics about corporate sustainability actions and activities, governance, strategies, planning, practices, engagements, and more. Materiality assessment activities are critical elements of GRI standards reporting, notes the GRI team.

In addition, GRI is launching a series of Sector Specific guidance, beginning with the new “Sector Standard for Oil and Gas.”

The sector standards will address “how decision and actions of companies address widespread stakeholder concerns about their climate change-related impacts, while ensuring a just transition for workers, communities and the environment”.

We are sharing details of the above developments at GRI with you in the Top Stories this issue.

The G&A Institute team has been focused intently on GRI reporting since 2000 and was designated as the GRI Data Partner for the U.S., and then the U.K. and Republic of Ireland more than a decade ago.

Over this decade, we’ve gathered and analyzed in depth thousands of GRI reports since then. G&A Institute is a Community Member of GRI, and we of course watch the work of GRI very closely.

Whether you are a corporate manager, executive or board member, or provider of capital to the corporate sector, you should also keep a close watch on GRI.  And, the G&A team is available to help answer any questions you have.

TOP STORIES

On Corporate Risk Strategy, Sustainable Actions & Outcomes – What’s the Best Ways to Report on ESG to Stakeholders?

Posted on by
Reply

April 2021

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

Buzz… Buzzz… Buzzzzz! The current buzz among key stakeholders – investors, corporate boards & management, NGOs, government regulators, stock exchanges, ESG raters & rankers, ESG corporate disclosure standards and frameworks managers – is centered on “Quo Vadis”…where do we go from here!

The good news is that the lively discussions underway appear to be indicating progress in the global drive to achieve more holistic, meaningful, accurate, comparable, understandable corporate ESG disclosure approaches.

One, to help publicly-traded company managements understand and provide transparency for the data sets, metrics and narratives that asset owners and their managers, and (2) to help creators of sustainable investing products in their expanding analysis of companies of all market cap sizes.

Influential players are part of the discussion.

Example: The World Economic Forum (WEF) published a White Paper in January 2020 to set out a framework to bring sustainable reporting frameworks & standards into a common and consistent system of metrics. This, to help investors and companies attain sustainable value creation and accurately disclose on same. WEF suggests a set of 22 Core metrics and a range of Expanded metrics to start with.

At the same time the “Big Five” of the global corporate sustainability disclosure and reporting frameworks and standards organizations are collaborating and recently published a shared vision of the elements necessary for achieving more comprehensive and holistic corporate sustainability reporting.

The five organizations are: CDP; the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB); Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC); Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). Plus TCFD, the Task Force for Climate Related Financial Disclosure, created by the Financial Stability Board (FSB), a G20 nations organization.

Joining the effort: The European Commission; IOSCO (global government securities regulators organization); WEF’s International Business Council; and IFRS.

Each issue of the G&A Sustainability Highlights newsletter we bring you information about the above and much more related to the increasing tempo of the buzzzzz on corporate sustainability disclosure and reporting.

The discussions are taking place worldwide as leadership in public sector, private (business/corporate) sector and social sector address a widening range of ESG issues that will over time determine what kind of world we’ll live in.

See: meeting the challenges of climate change multiple issues, diversity & inclusion, populations deciding on democracy or authoritarianism, having ample food supplies or facing starvation, providing equality of opportunities & outcomes, pandemics to come, rapidly disappearing natural resources, political financing, a range of labor/workforce challenges…and more.

The content silos in our newsletter are designed to help you scan and select the news and perspectives we gather for you each issue.

The G&A Institute’s “Sustainability Headquarters” (SHQ) web platform has many more items selected by our editorial team led by EVP Ken Cynar for you. He’s assisted in these efforts by G&A’s Amy Gallagher, Reilly Sakai, Julia Nehring, Elizabeth Peterson, Lucas Alvarez, Lou Coppola, and Hank Boerner. All of this is team effort! Check the expanded related contents not in the newsletter on SHQ!

We constantly monitor all of the above issues — the global ESG disclosure buzz! — and participate in certain of the conversations as guiding the ESG disclosure and reporting of our corporate clients is at the core of the G&A Institute mission.

TOP STORIES

Eyes on Financial Accounting and Reporting Standards – IASB & FASB Consider “Convergence” and Separate Actions

Posted on by
Reply

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

March 2021

Investors Call For More Non-Financial Standards for Corporate Reporting, Less Confusion in “Voluntary” Disclosure.

Should there be more clarity in the rules for corporate sustainability accounting and reporting as many more investors embrace ESG/Sustainable analysis and portfolio management approaches?

Many investors around the world think so and have called for less confusion, more comparability, more credible and complete corporate disclosure for ESG matters.

Accounting firms are part of the chorus of supporters for global non-financial disclosure standards development.

Where and how might such rules be developed? There are two major financial accounting/reporting organizations whose work investors and stakeholder rely on: The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and in the United States of America, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Both organizations develop financial reporting standards for publicly traded companies.

There are similarities and significant differences in their work. The US system is “rules-based” while the IASB’s approach has been more “principles-based” The differences have been diminishing to some degree with the US Securities & Exchange Commission more recently embracing some principles-based reporting.

By acts of the US Congress, FASB (a not-for-profit) was created and has governmental authority to impose new accounting rules — while the IASB rules are more voluntary.

The US system has “GAAP” – Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for guidance in disclosure. The adoption of IFRS is up to individual countries around the world (144 nations have adopted IFRS).

The IASB standards are global; these are the “IFRS” (International Financial Reporting Standards) issued by the IASB.

The FASB standards are used by US-based companies. For years, the two organizations have tried to better align their work to achieve a global financial reporting standard – “convergence”.

The IFRS Foundation is based in the United States and has the mission of developing a single set of “high-quality, understandable, enforceable and globally-accepted accounting standards (the IFRS), which are set by IASB.

In 2022 IASB and FASB will have a joint conference (“Accounting in an Ever-Changing World”) in New York City to “…strengthen connections between the academic and standard-setting communities…” and explore differences and similarities between US GAAP and IFRS Standards.

Consider that the Financial Stability Board (FSB), which launched the TCFD, is on record in support of a single set of high-quality global accounting standards.

Convergence. In the USA, the “whole of government” approach to the climate crisis by the Biden-Harris Administration may result in encouragement, perhaps even rules for, corporate ESG disclosure. The IASB is not waiting.

The IFRS Foundation Trustees are conducting analysis to see whether or not to create another board that would issue global standards for sustainability accounting and reporting.

A proposal will come by the time of the UN Climate Change Conference this fall. Should the IFRS foundation play a role? The International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) thinks so.

Many questions remain for IASB and FASB to address, of course. This is a complex situation, and we bring you some relevant news in the newsletter this week.

TOP STORIES

Here’s an update from the IFRS Foundation and what is being considered:

Meanwhile, the European Commission separately is exploring how to strengthen “non-financial” reporting – there’s the possibility that there could be EU standards developed:

Helpful information about the FASB-IASB differences:

Looking to 2021- Michael Bloomberg Advises: What President Biden Should Do

Posted on by
1

December 31, 2020

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

This is my last post of 2020 – indeed, a chaotic, challenging and tumultuous year for corporate managers and investment professionals.  And the rest of us!

At this time last year we were looking forward to continued peace and economic growth. That new virus spreading infection inside China was a blip on the horizon for many people. 

Most of us did not foresee the rapid spread of this dangerous virus to all corners of the globe, and the resulting tragedy of the immensity of deaths, as many families lost loved ones,  We were not adequately prepared for the resulting economic upheaval posing serious challenges to leaders in the private sector, public sector and capital markets.  At year end we are still working our way through the mess. 

And so we come the start of a new calendar year — 2021! — with all of humanity wishing for better days! 

Many eyes are on the United States of America, the world’s largest economy, which will soon have new leadership in the White House and the important arms of the federal government, the cabinets. Those are State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Energy, Labor, Commerce, and other departments as well as in key agencies such as the Securities & Exchange Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).

The better days could start on January 20th when a new President and Vice President are sworn in and a new Congress will already be in office (the 117th Congress will convene on January 5th with 100 Senators and 435 Members of the House of Representatives). 

And there is much work for all of those leaders to do!  There are especially high expectations of soon-to-be President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris…and the men and women they will appoint or nominate (for U.S. Senate confirmation) to help in leading the USA forward, working in cabinet offices or federal agencies. .

President Biden has said that his will be the “climate change administration” and that meeting the challenges posed by climate change is a top priority.

What should / can be done as these leaders settle into the office?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, head of the Bloomberg LP organization — he with the loudest megaphone to reach and influence capital markets players, government leaders, NGOs, climate activists, multilateral organizations leaders, and many more leaders and influentials — has some specific suggestions for the Biden-Harris team as they assume office.

Here are some of the highlights of Mayor Mike’s suggestions:

  • “Biden Needs to Lead on Climate Reporting” (the headline of the editorial with the suggestions – there’s a link below).
  • Biden’s pledge to rejoin the Paris Agreement should be carried out and this will send a strong signal to the world. But that will take us back four years (when Secretary of State John Kerry led the US delegation in joining the agreement).
  • To move forward President Biden on his first day in the Oval Office should begin the effort to bring together the leaders of the G-20 nations (the world’s leading economies*)  to endorse a mandatory standard for global businesses to measure and then report on risks all nations face from climate change.

There are mechanisms and players in place to help make rapid progress.

Remember that Michael Bloomberg heads the TCFD – the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures — which was formed by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) —  the board a creation of the G20 nations after the disaster of the 2008 financial crisis. 

The concept of the FSB is to serve as a sounding board and think tank for the leading economies of the world to address among critical issues risks to the financial system. 

This is the organization’s official description: “The Financial Stability Board (FSB) is an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system.  The FSB promotes international financial stability; it does so by coordinating national financial authorities and international standard-setting bodies as they work toward developing strong regulatory, supervisory and other financial sector policies. FSB fosters a level playing field by encouraging coherent implementation of these policies across sectors and jurisdictions.”

This means that the FSB, working through its member organizations, seeks to strengthen financial systems and increase the stability of international financial markets. The policies developed in the pursuit of this agenda are then implemented by jurisdictions and national authorities.  

Members include the US Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve System, and the Securities & Exchange Commission.  

The TCFD is a creation of these and other members. 

The TCFD issued recommendations for companies to measure, manage and report on risks and opportunities related to climate change — which Mayor Bloomberg sees as key driver in directing capital to companies with smarter, more responsible leadership that protect and company and seize opportunities related to climate change.

The TCFD guidelines have been adopted or endorsed by 1,000-plus companies and organizations in 80 countries on six continents, Michael Bloomberg pointed out in his editorial.  Sovereign members of the G20 are among the endorsers — Japan, Canada, France, New Zealand, the United Kingdom. 

And so the United States of America — the world’s largest economy — could serve as the catalyst, the unifier, the key player in the drive for adoption of global standards under Biden-Harris leadership. 

This would serve to bring a coordinated effort to deal with the challenges posed by climate change on a global basis, help to develop the right regulations for the world’s family of nations to develop uniform, comparable regulations for climate change disclosure and reporting, and remove uncertainty for corporate leaders and their providers of capital. 

Michael Bloomberg, whose own company’s widely-used platform (“the Bloomberg”) carries volumes of ESG data, tapping his own knowledge of ESG data, advises us that such data must be useful, comparable, and not be confusing (as is frequently now the case). 

Even with the increasing flow of ESG data, the world’s financial markets, Michael Bloomberg points out, operate in the dark today in terms of climate change – which he sees as the biggest risk to the global economy.

Michael Bloomberg is urging the Biden-Harris team to take action “…to help to develop a single global disclosure framework for climate risks that helps drive a faster and more effective response to climate change”.

Or else we will continue “with competing frameworks that make it harder for investors and businesses to identify risks, leading to more economic harm and lower progress”.

Mayor Bloomberg’s summing up his views:  “Climate disclosure is not flashy but it’s one of the important tools we have to speed progress on prevent climate change and economic hardship…which could dwarf the effects of the financial crisis.  The faster we make [disclosure] standard practice globally, the safer and stronger the economy will be.  The US can help lead the way.”

There’s the complete editorial and more perspectives shared at bloomberg.com/opinion.

And so we end 2020 (farewell!) and begin a new year, filled for many people with great hope and promise for better days.  Stay Tuned!  And best wishes to you for the new year.  

#  #  #

P.S. Michael Bloomberg was also the Chair of the Sustainable Accounting Standards Board (SASB) Foundation, 2014-2018 and remains supportive of the organization.

You can follow Michael Bloomberg on his web site:  https://www.mikebloomberg.com/

*  The G20 nations are the USA, UK, Germany, France Italy, Japan, Canada (these are the G7); Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey.  Plus “guests” – Spain; two African countries; the International Monetary Fund; World Bank; United Nations; the World Trade Organization; the Financial Stability Board (all attend G20 summits).  

To understand the influence of the Financial Stability Board, here are the members: https://www.fsb.org/about/organisation-and-governance/members-of-the-financial-stability-board/

The members of the Task Force (TCFD) and other information: https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/about/

About “Stakeholder Capitalism”: The Public Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Here is the Transition — From the Long-Dominant Worldview of “Stockholder Capitalism” in a Changed World to…Stakeholder Capitalism!

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

October 2020

As readers of of G&A Institute’s weekly Sustainability Highlights newsletter know, the shift from “stockholder” to “stakeholder” capitalism has been underway in earnest for a good while now — and the public dialogue about this “21st Century Sign of Progress” has been quite lively.

What helped to really frame the issue in 2019 were two developments:

  • First, CEO Larry Fink, who heads the world’s largest asset management firm (BlackRock) sent a letter in January 2019 to the CEOs of companies in portfolio to focus on societal purpose (of course, in addition to or alongside of corporate mission, and the reasons for being in business).
  • Then in August, the CEOs of almost 200 of the largest companies in the U.S.A. responded; these were members of influential Business Roundtable (BRT), issuing an update to the organization’s mission statement to embrace the concepts of “purpose” and further cement the foundations of stakeholder capitalism.

These moves helped to accelerate a robust conversation already well underway, then further advanced by the subset discussion of Corporate America’s “walking-the-talk” of purpose et al during the Coronavirus pandemic.

Now we are seeing powerful interests weighing in to further accelerate the move away from stockholder primacy (Professor Milton Friedman’s dominant view for decades) to now a more inclusive stakeholder capitalism.  We bring you a selection of perspectives on the transition.

The annual gathering of elites in Davos, Switzerland this year — labeled the “Sustainable Development Impact Summit” — featured a gaggle of 120 of the world’s largest companies collaborating to develop a core set of common metrics / disclosures on “non-financials” for both investors and stakeholders. (Of course, investors and other providers of capital ARE stakeholders — sometimes still the inhabiting the primacy space on the stakeholder wheel!)

What are the challenges business organizations face in “making business more sustainable”?

That is being further explored months later by the World Economic Forum (WEF-the Davos organizers) — including the demonstration (or not) of excellence in corporate citizenship during the Covid-19 era. The folks at Davos released a “Davos Manifesto” at the January 2020 meetings (well before the worst impacts of the virus pandemic became highly visible around the world).

Now in early autumn 2020 as the effects of the virus, the resulting economic downturn, the rise of civil protests, and other challenges become very clear to C-suite, there is a “Great Reset” underway (says the WEC).

The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window opportunity to “reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.”

New ESG reporting metrics released in September by the World Economic Forum are designed to help companies report non-financial disclosures as part of the important shift to Stakeholder Capitalism.

There are four pillars to this approach:  People (Human Assets); Planet (the impact on natural environment); Prosperity (employment, wealth generation, community); and Principles of Governance (strategy, measuring risk, accounting and of course, purpose).

The WEF will work with the five global ESG framework and standard-setting organizations as we reported to you recently — CDSB, IIRC, CDP, GRI, SASB plus the IFAC looking at a new standards board (under IFRS).

Keep in mind The Climate Disclosure Standards Board was birthed at Davos back in 2007 to create a new generally-accepted framework for climate risk reporting by companies. The latest CDSB report has 21 core and 34 expanded metrics for sustainability reporting. With the other four collaborating organizations, these “are natural building blocks of a single, coherent, global ESG reporting system.”

The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC, another of the collaborators) weighed in to welcome the WEF initiative (that is in collaboration with Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PWC) to move toward common ESG metrics. And all of this is moving toward “COP 26” (the global climate talks) which has the stated goal of putting in place reporting frameworks so that every finance decision considers climate change.

“This starts”, says Mark Carney, Governor, Bank of England, and Chair of the Financial Stability Board, “with reporting…this should be integrated reporting”.

Remember, the FSB is the sponsor of the TCFD for climate-related financial disclosure.  FSB is a collaboration of the central banks and treasury ministries of the G-20 nations.

“COP 26 was scheduled for November in Glasgow, Scotland, and was postponed due to the pandemic. We are now looking at plans for a combined 26 and 27 meeting in November 2021.”  Click here for more information.

There is a lot of public dialogue centered on these important moves by influential players shaping and advancing ESG reporting — and we bring you a selection of those shared perspectives in our Top Stories in the Sustainability Highlights newsletter this week.

Top Stories On Davos & More

And then there is this, in the public dialogue on Stakeholder Capitalism, adding a dash of “reality” from The New York Times:

Lively Discussions: The Move Toward Harmonized Corporate ESG / Sustainability Reporting

Posted on by
Reply

September 22 2020

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

There are lively discussions going on, centered on improving publicly-traded company disclosure and reporting – and especially ESG reporting…that is, storytelling about the company’s “non-financials” (in accounting-speak).  And the story of the corporate sustainability story for those-in-the-know!

The proliferation of ESG / sustainability reporting frameworks, standards, information platforms, industry guidance, stock exchange guidance and much more has been astounding in recent years.

We think of all this as about the organizing of the storytelling about a company’s sustainability journey and what the enterprise has accomplished. 

And why the story matters to society…to investors, employees, customers, suppliers, communities…and other stakeholders.

And it has a been a long journey to the state of today’s expanding corporate ESG disclosure.

The start of mandating of periodic financial and business mandated disclosure goes back to the 1930s with passage of landmark federal legislation & adopted implementation (compliance) rules for publicly-traded companies in the United States.

Corporate financial disclosure in concept is all about providing shareholders (and potential investors) with the information they need to make buy-sell-hold decisions.

The sturdy foundations of mandated corporate disclosure in the U.S. are the laws passed after the 1929 stock market crash – the 1933 Securities Act and 1934 Exchange Act.  These laws and the bodies of rules deriving from them have been constantly updated over the years, including with Sarbanes Oxley legislation in 2002 and Dodd Frank in 2010. These mandate or guide and otherwise provide the rules-of-the-road for financial disclosure for company managements.

Disclosure has steadily moved well beyond the numbers – Sarbanes-Oxley updated the 1930’s laws and addressed many aspects of corporate governance, for example.

Voluntary Disclosure & Reporting – ESG Issues & Topics
Over the past 40 years, beyond the financials, corporate voluntary non-financial disclosure has been steadily increasing, as investors first embraced “socially responsible investing” and moved on to sustainable & responsible & impact investing in the 21st Century.

Asset owner and asset manager (internal and external) requests for ESG information from publicly-traded companies in portfolio has steadily expanded in the depth and breadth of topic and issue areas that institutional investors are focused on – and that companies now address in significantly-expanded ESG disclosures.

Today, investor interest in ESG / sustainability and related topics areas is widespread throughout asset classes – for equities, equity-focused products such as imutual funds and ETFs, fixed-income instruments, and now credit risk, options and futures, fixed assets (such as real estate), and more.

With today’s dramatic increase in corporate sustainability & ESG reporting, the maturation of reporting frameworks and standards to help address the internal need for better organizing non-financial data and information and accompanying ESG financial disclosure.

And all of this in the context of trying to meet investor demands.  Today with expanded ESG disclosure, corporate executives find that while there are more resources available to the company, there is also more confusion in the disclosure process.   Investors agree.

Common Complaints:  Lack of Comparability, Confusion, Demand for Change
The result of increasing demand by a widening range of investors for accurate, detailed corporate ESG information and the related proliferation of reporting frameworks and standards can and has resulted in confusion among investors, stakeholders and companies as to what is important and material and what is frill.

This especially as corporate managements embrace various elements of the available frameworks and standards and industry guidance and ESG ratings for their still-voluntary ESG reporting.

So where do we go from here?  In our selection of Top Stories for you, we bring you news from important players in the ESG reporting process as they attempt to move in the direction of more uniform, comprehensive, meaningful and decision-ready corporate ESG reporting. That investors can rely on.

The news for you is coming from GRI, SASB, GSSB, IIRC, CDSB, and CDP (among others) – all working to get on the same page.

The aim: to benefit corporate reporters – and the users of the reports, especially capital market players.

Because in the end, ESG excellence is all about winning in the competition for access to capital. Accurate, timely, comprehensive comparable ESG information is key!

Top Stories

The Financial Sector and Corporate Universe – the “ESG Factors” Are Now Everywhere When Companies Seek Capital

Posted on by
1

September 8 2020

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

The roots of today’s “sustainable investing” approaches go back decades; the organizing principle often was often around  what investors viewed as “socially responsible”, “ethical”, “faith-based” and “values” investing, and by other similar titles.

“SRI” over time evolved into the more dominant sustainable or ESG investing in the 21st Century — with many more mainstream investors today embracing the approach.

And busily shaping trends, there is a universe of ESG ratings agencies and information distributors providing volumes of ESG ratings, scores, rankings and opinions to institutional investor clients and a broad base of asset managers, index creators and more.

Recently, the three major credit risk agencies increased their focus on ESG factors for their investor and lending clients.

Access to and cost of capital for companies is a more complicated situation today for financial executives  — and the steady flow of “sustainable investing” products to asset owners and asset managers increases the importance of a publicly-traded firm “being in” the sustainable product for institutional and retail investors.

Such as having the company being present in an ever-wider range of ESG indexes, benchmarks, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, and now even options and futures.

All of this can and does increase pressures on the publicly-traded corporation’s management to develop, or enhance, and more widely promote the company’s “public ESG profile” that financial sector players will consider when investing, lending, insuring, and more.

The latest expansion / adoption of ESG approaches for investable products are from Cboe Global Markets.

The new “Cboe S&P 500 ESG Index”(r) options (trading starts September 21) will align with investor ESG preferences, says the exchange.

The traditional S&P 500 index is a broad-based equity benchmark used by thousands of investment managers and is the leading equities benchmark representing about 85% of total USA publicly-traded equities (all large-cap companies).  Availability to investment managers of the S&P 500 ESG Index is a more recent development.

The S&P 500® Index (equities) measures the stock performance of 500 large-cap companies whose issues are traded on US stock exchanges.  It was created in 1957.

The newer S&P 500 ESG Index targets the top 75% of companies in the 500 universe within their GICS® industry group.(Exclusions include tobacco, controversial weapons and UNGC non-compliance.) Asset managers link sustainability-focused products for investors to this index, including Invesco and State Street (SPDRs) for their ETFs.

Note that the S&P 500 ESG Index uses S&P DJSI ESG scores and other data to select companies for inclusion —  increasing the importance of the Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) that for two decades has been used to create the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (“DJSI”). (The CSA is managed by SAM, now a unit of S&P Global.)

About Futures:  In November 2019 CME Group launched its CME E-mini S&P 500 ESG Index futures as a risk management tools — aligning, it pointed out, with ESG values.

About the CME Group: You probably know the Chicago-based firm by its units, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, New York Mercantile Exchange, Chicago Board of Trade, Kansas City Board of Trade, and others.  The organization’s roots go back to 1848 as the Chicago Board of Trade was created. This is the world’s largest financial derivatives exchange trading such things as futures for energy, agriculture commodities, metals, interest rates, and stock indexes.

Investors have access to fixed-income instruments and foreign exchange trading (such as Eurodollars).  The “trading pit” with shouted orders and complicated hand signals are features many are familiar with. Of course CME has electronic platforms.

About Cboe Global Markets:  This is one of the world’s largest exchange holding companies (also based in Chicago) and offers options on more than 2,000 companies, almost two dozen exchanges and almost 150 ETFs.  You probably have known it over the years as the Chicago Board Options Exchange, established by the Chicago Board of Trade back in April 1973.  (The exchange is regulated by the SEC.)

The Cboe offers options in US and European debt and equity issues, index options, futures, and more.  The organization itself issued its own first-time ESG report for 2019 performance, “referencing” GRI, SASB, TCFD, SDGs, and the World Federation of Exchanges (WFE), Sustainable Stock Exchanges (SSE) initiatives. Now ESG is part of the mix.

Considering equities, fixed-income, stock indexes, futures, options, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, financial sector lending, “green bonds” and “green financing” – for both publicly-traded and privately-owned companies the ESG trends are today are very much an more important part of the equation when companies are seeking capital, and for the cost of capital raisedl.

And here clearly-demonstrated and communicated corporate ESG leadership is critical to be considered for becoming a preferred ESG issuer for many more investors and lenders.

Top Stories

Corporate ESG Stakeholders – Materiality Matters – Quality Over Quantity to Have Compelling Reporting

Posted on by
Reply

August 10 2020

By Pam Styles, Principal and Founder, Next Level Investor Relations, and G&A Institute Fellow

Will ESG/Sustainability be more or less in the forefront as economies attempt to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic?  Survey results vary, but a common theme is that materiality and quality of a company’s strategic sustainability focus and reporting will be expected.

Sustainability in Economic Recovery
A recent survey of publicly listed U.S. company executives by the Conference Board™ suggests that well over half (59%) believe the COVID-19 pandemic will have little or no negative impact on growing interest in company sustainability programs overall, while a majority within these results believe the pandemic may shift the focus of sustainability, e.g. more to people, supply chain, etc.

A survey of recent company announcements related to sustainability formed the basis for the article, Is sustainability undergoing a pandemic pause?  by Joel Makower, CEO of GreenBiz. He concludes that, “Unlike previous economic downturns, sustainability isn’t being jettisoned in the spirit of corporate cost-savings. It’s being kept alive as part of a pathway back to profitability.”

These are challenging but exciting times, and there is every reason to believe that ESG/sustainability can and will be in the forefront as companies, communities and countries recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Materiality Matters
That said, heightened emphasis on materiality in sustainability reporting has gained traction, in response to perceived “greenwashing” by companies in sustainability communications.  The trap of greenwashing has been prevalent enough to frustrate many third-party stakeholders and gain attention across the field.

Most major voluntary frameworks for corporate sustainability reporting guidance now separately and collectively encourage companies to pay attention to the materiality of reported content. This includes GRI, SASB, IIRC, TCFD, CDP and others.

The Chartered Financial Association (CFA), the Big Four accounting houses, law firms and others are also stepping-up the pressure on corporations to bring sustainability reporting to a next level of materiality focus and quality.

Governance & Accountability Institute succinctly captures the breadth of concern,

“Materiality is an important cornerstone of an effective corporate sustainability process…Without an effective materiality process (and mapping) companies can waste time, effort, human resources and financial investment on issues that will provide little or no benefit in sustainability and responsibility reporting — or may even serve to further cloud and confuse the company’s stakeholders and shareholders…Companies committed to position themselves as recognized leaders in sustainability require the materiality determination process to be thorough, accurate, and effective to implement their Sustainability program.”

Compelling Reporting
Less-is-more… your company sustainability report need not be lengthy!  It needs to focus the reader on, where and how your particular company can effectively prioritize its sustainability efforts.

Those who read a lot of sustainability reports can quickly distinguish between sustainability platitudes and substantive content. The former can be perceived as a possible sign that the reporting company has not truly integrated sustainability into its business.”

As John Friedman writes in his newly-released book, Managing Sustainability, First Steps to First Class,

“For this reason, it is important, always, to adopt and use the language of business rather than advocacy or philanthropy when integrating sustainability into any business…too often sustainability professionals speak in terms of “doing well by doing good’ and the “Sustainable Development Goals” rather than the more compelling arguments that link sustainability programs to the established (and more familiar) business imperatives such as “improving business processes,” “implementing best practices,” and “return on investment.”

 A recent joint report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness report on ESG Reporting Best Practices, makes other relevant observations including:

“… materiality determination may differ based on the diverse characteristics of different companies…”

“… while the word “materiality” is used by some constituencies to connote different meanings, the term has a well-established definition under the U.S. federal securities laws”

 “Issuers preparing ESG reports should explain why they selected the metrics and topics they ultimately disclose, including why management believes those metrics and topics are important to the company.”

 “Disclosure should not be a tool for advancing interests that are not aligned with the company’s ability to create value over time”

 Company leadership may find that…

  • renewed attention to materiality can help streamline internal efforts and strengthen the basis of information that Company corporate communications and spokespersons rely on.
  • having a clear materiality basis enables your communications team to clearly indicate ‘n/a’ or ‘not material’ in some fashion, where applicable, as opposed to not responding or to staying silent within external sustainability reporting and questionnaire responses (obviously seek legal counsel as warranted).
  • having a clear ESG materiality basis can help avoid frustration, confusion, and misunderstanding in external communications – and, yes, minimize guessing or interpolation by third party stakeholders.
  • Renewed attention to materiality helps everyone focus on the substance of your company’s sustainability efforts, strategic positioning and reporting.

Ensuring the company’s sustainability and survival and contributing to the economic recovery post-pandemic are too important to waste time or money communicating trivial metrics.

Final Word
Sustainability is more important now than ever, as we urgently work together to lift our companies, economies and stakeholders up in the wake of the devastating pandemic.

This urgency will require every company to play to its strengths, stretch where appropriate and produce compelling sustainability reports (website and other collateral communications too).  It will require strength of conviction that materiality matters – courage to clearly communicate when particular large or small performance elements of sustainability framework guidelines do not apply to your company and are simply not material for a framework response or third-party consideration.

Pamela Styles – Fellow G&A Institute – is principal of Next Level Investor Relations LLC, a strategic consultancy with dual Investor Relations and ESG / Sustainability specialties.

The S&P 500® Universe — Setting the Pace for Corporate Sustainability Reporting: 90% Mark Reached!

Posted on by
Reply
by Hank Boerner – Chair & Chief Strategist – G&A Institute

The popular corporate equity “baskets” including the Dow Jones Industrial Index, Nasdaq 100, S&P 500, the Russell 1,000 – 2,000 – and 3,000– in essence consist of the underlying value of the corporate shares in each basket (or benchmark for investors).

Today, there is an ocean of stock indexes for asset managers to license from the creators and then apply process and approaches for keeping track of the companies in the fiduciary portfolio, or to analyze and pick from the underlying issues for their portfolio.

Alternative benchmarks and indexes may be dependent on market cap size and have variations in the index family to fine tune the analysis (think of the varieties of Wilshire, Russell, S&P Dow Jones, etc.).

There has been a steady move by many asset managers from “active management” to passive investment instruments, with this transition key benchmarks become an important tool for the analyst and portfolio manager.

One large-cap index really dominates the capital markets:  The S&P 500.

G&A Institute’s Annual S&P 500® Research
Almost a decade ago, the team at G&A Institute began gathering corporate reports to build our models and methodology for guiding client’s corporate disclosure and reporting — and focusing especially on the structured reports of U.S. publicly-traded companies, we selected the universe of companies that the index creators include in the S&P 500 Index®.

Here’s why:  The S&P 500 Index is the most-widely-quoted index measuring the stock performance of the 500 largest investable companies listed on American stock exchanges.  Asset managers licensees like State Street, MCSI, Invesco Capital and London Stock Exchange Group use this index for their constructing ETFs and other investable products.

This universe of public companies provided for our team a solid foundation for tracking and analyzing the activities of these 500 companies as they began or expanded their sustainability reporting. In 2011, that first year. we found just about 20% of the 500 were publishing sustainability reports.

And here’s the dramatic news:
G&A’s just-completed report shows 90% of the S&P 500 companies produced a sustainability report in year 2019!

Tracking the Trends
Over the decade of close tracking and analysis of the 500 companies in the index, the good news is we saw the number of reports steadily grow.

We charted the broad impact of these market-leading enterprises on such reporting frameworks and standards as the GRI and SASB as those standards evolved and matured and were adopted by the companies in the 500.  We saw…

CDP disclosure steadily expanded in structured reports and (stand alone) corporate responses to CDP on carbon emissions, water, supply chain, forestry products.

The adoption of UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by companies as they were in some way conceptually a part of a company’s sustainability strategy (and subsequent reporting).

And more recently, there was the adoption of TCFD recommendations by corporate issuers in the U.S. – that began to show up in reports recently.

Starting with 2010 reporting, the first G&A analysis, we’ve shared the highlights of the research efforts.

Teams of talented, passionate and bright analyst-interns developed each year’s report (you can see who they are/were in G&A’s Honor Roll on our web site).  Most of the team members have moved on to career positions in the corporate, investment, public sector and NGO communities.

Download this year’s report, examining 2019 corporate sustainability reporting by the S&P 500 companies.

We’ve organized the deliverable for both quick scanning and concentrated reviewing.  Let us know if you have questions about the research results.

Stay tuned to G&A’s upcoming Russell 1000 Index® analysis of 2019 reporting.

This second important index/benchmark was created several decades ago by the Frank Russell Company and is now maintained by FTSE Russell (subsidiary of the London Stock Exchange Group)

The largest companies by market cap companies are available as benchmarks for investors in the S&P 500 (largest cap) and for the next 500 in the Russell 1000.

The ripple effects of the S&P 500 companies and more recently some of the Russell 1000 companies on corporate sustainability disclosure and reporting is fascinating for us to track.

Many mid-cap and small-cap companies are now adopting similar reporting policies and practices.  Privately-owned companies are publishing similar reports.  All of this means volumes of ESG data and narrative flowing out to investors – and fueling the growth of sustainable investing.  We find this all very encouraging in our tracking of corporate reporting.

Here are the details for you:

Top Stories

90% of S&P 500 Index Companies
Publish Sustainability Reports in 2019,
G&A Announces in its Latest Annual
2020 Flash Report
Source: Governance & Accountability Institute, Inc. – G&A Institute announces the results of its annual S&P 500 sustainability reporting analysis. 90% of the S&P 500 published corporate sustainability reports, an all-time high!


Adding Important Perspectives to G&A’s S&P 500 Research Results

What is Greenwashing? The Importance of Maintaining Perspective in ESG Communications
Source: AlphaSense, Pamela Styles principal of Next Level Investor Relations LLC – “Greenwashing” can generally be described as ‘the practice of only paying lip service to environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors with token gestures.’ In practice, greenwashing occurs when an organization presents…

New report measures boardroom diversity at top S&P 500 companies
Source: CNBC – There’s a renewed focus on diversity in the boardroom, but a new report shows not much is changing. CNBC’s Seema Mody reports.