At the Forefront of Sustainability Management
Hiroko Matsumoto, Reporter/ESG editor, Nikkei
We asked Ms. Hiroko Matsumoto, an ESG editor at Nikkei, on the impact to companies and their responses over SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) corresponding with the expected regulatory changes coming.
This article was summarized and translated from the webinar broadcasted on November 30th, 2021.
Corporate brand image will improve, but how about stock prices?
According to the result from Nikkei SDGs Management Survey, more than half of the companies said that their SDGs efforts had a positive effect on their corporate brand image. In addition, 40-50% said it had a positive effect on employee engagement and recruitment. On the other hand, many did not feel it improved business performance and stock prices. Only 30% of the companies felt it had a positive effect on their market value.
This is an interesting coincidence to what I hear when I talk to companies. They say that even putting great effort on disclosing the details about their SDGs related activities, they don't feel the gain in their corporate value.
So why are their activities and disclosures not valued by the market?
I think there are two major factors, especially related on the investor side.
- Factor 1 :
- No one knows for sure what information is important for ESG. It is the first time in history that environmental and social issues became a major topic. Investors are still in the stage of seeking the ESG factors that will affect earnings and stock prices, and they have yet to “study” much.
- Factor 2 :
- Different investors requiring different information. Active investors want to know unique initiatives of individual companies even if they are qualitative information. While passive investors want to know quantitative information common and standardized to all companies.
What is the (common) disclosure standard?
A unified standard would be needed for investors to evaluate companies more fairly.
Although, currently, there are confusingly miscellaneous standards for ESG information disclosure. For example, there are standards from the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) that require a broad range of items, SASB (Sustainability Accounting Standards Board) requiring key indicators by industry, and TCFD (Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures). Those contents vary widely, and companies are puzzled and hard to decide which disclosure standards they should follow. To investors, the content of disclosure differs from company to company, making it impossible to make side-by-side comparisons.
Upon the growing concern over the problem of disparate disclosure standards, a rising movement toward integrating, and unification of standards has begun. As one of the results of this movement, SASB and the IIRC (International Integrated Reporting Council), which formulates the International Integrated Reporting Framework, established the VRF (Value Reporting Foundation) by merging in June 2021.
In 2020, the IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) Foundation announced its intention to create a common global standard for ESG information disclosure. In 2021, at COP26, the ISSB (International Sustainability Standards Board) was announced its establishment under the IFRS Foundation. The ISSB is basically a set of standards designed for investors, and the first step is to develop standards related to climate change, based on the TCFD recommendations. They are planning to release a draft of the disclosure standard in January to March 2022 and publish in June or somewhat later in the year. It has also been announced that ISSB would complete the consolidation of the CDSB (Climate Disclosure Standards Board) and the VRF by June 2022.
While the major organizations for standards development will be integrated to the ISSB, the creation of a unified global standard and its wide spread of use is speeding up.
ISSB prototype of the climate change disclosure
The prototype of climate change disclosure standard was announced with the establishment of ISSB, developed by TCFD, VRF, CDSB and others. In align with TCFD recommendations, the disclosure consists under 4 pillars -- "governance", "strategy", "risk management" and " metrics and targets” (Table 1).
Table 1. Overview of the ISSB prototype
Matters | Description |
---|---|
Governance | The governance processes, controls and procedures the entity uses to monitor and manage climate-related risks and opportunities. |
Strategy | The climate-related risks and opportunities that could enhance, threaten or change the entity’s business model and strategy over the short, medium and long term, including:
|
Risk management | how climate-related risks are identified, assessed, managed and mitigated by the entity; and |
Metrics and targets | the metrics and targets used to manage and monitor the entity’s performance in relation to climate-related risks and opportunities over time. |
There are metrics that are required to be disclosed across industries (Table 2). As for greenhouse gas emissions, the Scope 3 is set to all companies (while in TCFD recommendations, it depended on whether it is important to that company), which is somewhat groundbreaking. However, it does not specify which of the categories should be disclosed and to what extent.
Table 2. Cross-industry metrics in the ISSB prototype
Metrics | Description |
---|---|
Greenhouse gas emissions | In terms of absolute gross Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3, expressed as metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent, in accordance with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, and emissions intensity |
Transition risks | The amount and percentage of assets or business activities vulnerable to transition risks |
Physical risks | The amount and percentage of assets or business activities vulnerable to physical risks |
Climate-related opportunities | The proportion of revenue, assets or other business activities aligned with climate-related opportunities, expressed as an amount or as a percentage |
Capital deployment | The amount of capital expenditure, financing or investment deployed toward climate-related risks and opportunities, expressed in the reporting currency |
Internal carbon prices | The price for each metric tonne of greenhouse gas emissions used internally by an entity, including how the entity is applying the carbon price in decision-making (for example, investment decisions, transfer pricing, and scenario analysis), expressed in the reporting currency per metric tonne of CO2 equivalent |
Remuneration | The proportion of executive management remuneration affected by climate-related considerations in the current period, expressed in a percentage, weighting, description or amount in reporting currency |
The ISSB prototype also points out industry-specific metrics that are quite different from the TCFD’s guideline. This was introduced from SASB definitions. Detailed topics and metrics are specified for each industry. Such as for “Apparel, Accessories & Footwear”, the disclosure topic is “Raw Materials Sourcing” and the accounting metric would be the following two -- “Description of environmental and social risks associated with sourcing priority raw materials” and “Percentage of raw materials third-party certified to an environmental and/or social sustainability standard, by standard (percentage by weight)”.
Outcomes of COP26 and rise of biodiversity
The below list shows some of the key outcomes from COP26 (United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, held between October 31, 2021 to November 13, 2021).
●Glasgow Climate Accord (all member countries agreed)
- Phase-out of coal power generation
- Phase-out of subsidies for inefficient fossil fuels
- Revisit and strengthen emission reduction targets for each country in 2022
- Carbon market rules (avoidance of double counting, etc.)
- Early achievement of $100 billion in annual financial support and continuation through 2025
●About 100 countries agreed
- Reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030 compared to 2020
●About 130 countries agreed
- Forest conservation and restoration by 2030
With the pact on re-introducing the importance of the forests, ESG investors are paying more attention and primary industries such as agriculture and forestry could be attracting their focus.
Investors' interest will expand from climate change to the environment in general. In 2020, climate change was the hot topic. In 2021, at COP26, forest conservation was featured. In 2022, biodiversity should be creating great attention starting at COP15, known as the Convention on Biological Diversity.
From the results of SDGs Management Survey, in terms of plans over risk/opportunity analysis and disclosure, more than half of companies have set targets for climate change, while only around 30% have set targets for biodiversity. Regarding natural capital, a disclosure framework similar to TCFD is scheduled to come out soon, and companies will be required to respond eventually. As more attention is paid to initiatives regarding natural resources and biodiversity, it will most likely be reflected in the evaluation of companies. I would suggest companies to not think disclosure around natural capital and biodiversity is meaningless but should be prepared and disclose proactively.
Corporate governance and human rights
In Japan, there was a revision of the Corporate Governance Code in 2021. A focus on ensuring diversity of core personnel was included. Not to argue that climate change is possibly the largest topic in sustainability disclosure, but human investment and human resources are emerging as another major topic, that is sure to attract more attention from investors.
Over the past years, investors have been shifting their focus from improving diversity to investing in human capital. In 2020, diversity and inclusion of women was still a big issue. In 2021, as problems of human rights issue over Myanmar and Uyghur area arose, demand for aligning to the human rights is getting stronger. Germany and other European countries adopted a new supply chain due diligence law. In the coming future, human capital would be paid attention from a much broader perspective. For example, in the service industry, how well a company utilizes its human resources may be evaluated.
Advanced case study: Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)
Allbirds, a company that provides shoes and other products made from natural materials such as eucalyptus went public. It is a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC) in Delaware, a form that is attracting attention around the world. While most companies focus on profit, PBC aims both public benefit and profit at the same time. There are others known as similar form, such as Lemonade, an insurance company, and Vital Farms, a chicken farm operator providing humanely raised eggs.
Allbirds attracted attention because it presented its Sustainability Principles and Objectives Framework (SPO Framework) and made clear its commitment to ESG standards (Table 3).
Although PBC are still not common, I see this as one of the possibilities of an advanced form of organization -- to make commitments publicly and disclosing its examination of progress on its way.
Category | Criteria |
---|---|
ESG Rating | Issuer undergoes environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, assessment from a widely recognized third-party ESG reviewer and discloses a summary of the assessment and credentials of the ESG reviewer. Issuer ESG performance should be in the top third of the ESG reviewer’s coverage universe. Issuer self-assessment is not permitted. |
Mission & Purpose | Issuer clearly articulates how positive social and/or environmental impact is embedded in its business model, products, and services as they relate to key stakeholders (e.g., customers, employees, suppliers, shareholders, and external stakeholders) as evidenced through company reporting / S-1 / other SEC registered filings. Issuer can also meet this criterion through Public Benefit Corporation, Benefit Corporation, or Social Purpose Corporation status. Issuer has either already reported, or commits to report, annually on key ESG factors. Company may use one or more comprehensive reporting frameworks on financially material industry-specific sustainability-related risks and opportunities for an investor audience (e.g., the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, or SASB) and/or report on holistic economic, environmental, and social impacts of the company’s activities and contributions for a stakeholder audience (e.g., Global Reporting Initiative, or GRI) or pursue an integrated reporting approach, in addition to meeting regulatory disclosure requirements. This reporting will also include clear and explicit reference to the issuer’s performance against each of the SPO issuer criteria. |
Climate and Environment | Issuer has either already reported according to Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures recommendations, or commits to do so within 24 months of IPO, to demonstrate forward-looking understanding, management, and disclosure of climate- related risks. (i) Issuer has already reported scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions AND (ii) Issuer has already verified scope 1 and 2 emissions at IPO and commits to verify scope 3 emissions within 6 months of IPO or explain why scope 3 emissions cannot be verified AND (iii) Issuer commits to report and verify Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions annually. Issuer commits to establish, within one year of IPO, a carbon emissions reduction target that (i) Aims for net zero emissions covering Scopes 1, 2, and 3 as soon as possible, and no later than 2040 AND (ii)Is aligned to a 1.5°C temperature scenario, with interim targets measured no later than 2030. Issuer commits to make all viable efforts to reduce emissions before looking to purchase carbon offsets, which should be transparently disclosed, of high quality and verified by a credible third party. If a company has significant Scope 3 emissions (over 40% of total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions), it should include all material categories of Scope 3 emissions in the target. Issuer has enterprise-wide policies or programs to address its most material environmental issues (e.g., water, waste/circularity, biodiversity, land use, chemical use, energy use, and natural resource use), as well as applicable occupational health and safety principles for employees. Issuer commits to report annually on progress. |
Value Chain | Issuer has policies or programs designed to require Tier 1 suppliers to address its most material environmental issues (e.g., water, waste/circularity, biodiversity, land use, chemical use, energy use, and natural resource use). Issuer commits to report annually on progress. Issuer has policies or programs in place to monitor and enforce Tier 1 supply chain labor standards based on core labor standards as defined by the International Labour Organization, or local legal requirements, whichever is higher. Such policies and programs are supported and verified by assessment and issuer commits to report annually on progress. |
People | Issuer has made a commitment to achieve and maintain employee diversity (e.g., Gender/Race/Ethnicity/National Origin/Sexual Orientation/Religion/Disability/Age if legally permitted to collect such employee data) and reports currently and annually on progress, including aggregate data on representation, targets, job category, and compensation, and, in addition, commits to conduct ongoing training for personnel, leadership, and board members. Issuer commits to report annually on progress towards its goals regarding the median pay gap and mean pay gap, as defined by local regulations or, where those do not exist, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development or International Labour Organization on gender and minority groups appropriate for their geography/ies. Issuer commits to establish, within one year of IPO, a human rights policy consistent with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Issuer commits to establish and implement, within 24 months of IPO, a living wage requirement for all employees using a credible third-party measurement framework. |
Governance | Issuer has clearly articulated how the board will oversee ESG-related matters, including strategy, risk, and reporting, as formally documented in the charter for one or more board committees. Issuer has made a commitment to achieve and maintain board diversity (e.g., Gender/Race/National Origin/Sexual Orientation/Religion/Disability/Age, where legally permissible) and report annually on progress. Issuer has tied, or commits to tie within one year of IPO, executive remuneration to performance on ESG metrics, with disclosure of how the metrics relate to material ESG issues. Issuer has one or more dedicated ESG-focused executives, such as Chief Sustainability Officer or similar role. Issuer commits to align, within six months of IPO, its policy advocacy, political contributions, and trade association engagement with these sustainability criteria. Issuer has a company-wide ethics policy and confidential channel for reporting concerns. |
-
Feb/14/2022
-
Feb/15/2022
-
Feb/16/2022
-
Feb/17/2022
-
Feb/18/2022
-
Feb/19/2022
please contact us below.