by Andrew Parry
- The pandemic is no mere economic recession; it is also a societal and health emergency that will leave deep scars that could linger for a generation or more.
- As the global economy starts to emerge from the crisis, opportunities will abound for companies across all sectors to recommit to rigorous environmental and social programmes and sustainable practices.
- We believe it will soon be time to retire the term ‘ESG’ as sustainable and responsible practices become more enshrined within companies’ business strategy and corporate purpose.
During the global financial crisis of 2008, Warren Buffett famously said: “You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out”. So it has been with the Covid-19 pandemic in relation to the rigour with which companies have engaged with ESG (environmental, social and governance) concerns.
Whether it takes the form of companies working with bad actors across supply chains, poor crisis and contingency preparedness, workforce layoffs, or even brand reputation management, the virus has indeed dragged the tide out, exposing businesses and sectors where the ESG emperor is wearing no clothes. The good news: as the global economy starts to emerge from this worldwide crisis, opportunities will abound for companies across all sectors to recommit to rigorous environmental and social programmes and sustainable practices.
Societal and health emergency
What we are witnessing is no mere economic recession. At its heart, the pandemic is a societal and health emergency that will leave deep scars that linger for a generation or more. During the current crisis, investors, as well as our broader society, need to be vigilant against the potential outcome that would see existing, entrenched interests reinforced, rather than reversed, which would run counter to the hopes of society. We are currently seeing the best of many individuals and companies in the battle against the disease, but with trillions of dollars flooding the global system, the potential for misappropriation of the recovery by vested self-interests runs high.
If optimism exists, it is because prior to the pandemic’s arrival, the conversation in boardrooms had increasingly turned to ‘corporate purpose’ and the end of the primacy of shareholder value in favour of a multi-stakeholder approach to business. Indeed, last August, US senior management publication Business Roundtable (BRT) wrote a letter trumpeting the new world order of multi-stakeholder capitalism. Little did the signatories know how quickly that hypothesis would be tested! Now is the time for companies to turn those words into tangible action, and for shareholders to hold them to account if the rhetoric is to be more than empty words.
Companies as social enterprises
Every company, by definition, is a social enterprise that has an implicit social contract with its workers, the communities it serves, and the environment in which it operates – something explicitly recognised in the BRT statement. So far, the leadership and management teams of many companies have demonstrated empathy, compassion and ingenuity to go beyond profits to help communities in crisis. (Manufacturers making ventilators, retailers producing protective garments, and certain alcohol companies shifting production to hand sanitiser are all good examples.) For others, however, mercenary behaviours have been laid bare and rightly exposed to public opprobrium. That’s where active engagement by shareholders provides an opportunity to have real dialogue about salient issues that go beyond traditional financial measures. And, when dialogue refuses to yield results, executives and boards can ultimately be held to account through the power of proxy voting, a central part of securities ownership.
Now is the time for companies to rebalance expectations away from maximising short-term returns – the use of excessive debt and extended supply chains to reduce labour costs – towards the quality of those returns. In short, we have an opportunity to re-examine notions of efficiency in favour of resiliency. A stirring example of this kind of thinking is the city of Amsterdam, which has officially embraced a sustainable development model as a way of emerging with purpose from the Covid-19 crisis to balance needs without harming the environment.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) announcement that it has asked companies to release “robust, forward-looking disclosures” about the impact of Covid-19 on their businesses is another landmark moment. Extrapolating this further, it may mark a watershed opportunity to disclose broader sustainability information concerning long-term risks to which companies are exposed. On climate change, for example, the new disclosures should allow US companies to provide scenario-planning information recommended by the United Nations-supported Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which many thought was prohibited up until now. Fuller, more transparent disclosure of the material risks that companies face is needed for investors to better understand the strategy for delivering resilience in the face of future uncertainty.
Never before has there been so much interest in corporate sustainability. Despite the current crisis, ESG and sustainable-labelled equity funds set inflow records in Q1 2020. The growing demand for such products provides an opportunity for companies to demonstrate that ESG is not a handy marketing acronym for asset managers, but an integral part of how a company takes its corporate purpose seriously to generate value for all stakeholders.
Greenwashing is an accusation directed at companies, not just asset managers keen to virtue signal. ESG should never be just about what a company is disclosing, but what it is actually doing. Created in buoyant economic times, the BRT corporate purpose statement now provides a ready-made template for companies to navigate their way out of the crisis, and it recognises potential contribution towards delivering a vibrant and healthy world for all.
Our Covid-19 moment presents us with the opportunity to retire the ESG label in favour of recognising that what we’re really talking about is ‘finance 101’: the management of issues that are self-evident and influence good long-term corporate financial outcomes. Companies with poor ESG records may ultimately deflate shareholder value – and are likely to be held accountable if their behaviour falls short as the trauma engulfing the economy unfolds. I won’t be the last to say that our present time has been challenging, unprecedented, and even surreal. If corporations and investors alike remain vigilant, when the coronavirus tide finally recedes, it just might unearth a better, more purposeful world.
 https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-pur... 19 August, 2019
This information is solely for informational purposes and should not be construed as investment advice. This information has not been prepared to take into account the investment objectives, financial objectives or particular needs of any particular person. Before making an investment decision you should carefully consider, with or without the assistance of a financial adviser, whether such an investment strategy is appropriate in light of your particular investment needs, objectives and financial circumstances.
This document is a financial promotion and is not investment advice. This document must not be used for the purpose of an offer or solicitation in any jurisdiction or in any circumstances in which such offer or solicitation is unlawful or otherwise not permitted. This document should not be duplicated, amended or forwarded to a third party without consent from Newton Investment Management Limited (Newton).
In preparing this material Newton may have relied on information provided by third parties. Whilst Newton have no reason to doubt the accuracy of information provided or used to prepare this material, Newton do not represent, warrant or guarantee that the information in this material is accurate, complete or suitable for any purpose and it should not be used as a basis for investment decisions. Any opinions and estimates expressed in this document are those of the Newton Investment specialists and do not necessarily represent the views of the Newton. They reflect the Newton Investment specialists judgement as of the date of its publication, they involve a number of assumptions that may not prove valid and are subject to change without notice. Newton is not responsible for any subsequent investment advice given based on the information supplied.
Past performance should not be taken as an indication or guarantee of future performance and no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made regarding future performance. Neither the performance of the investments discussed nor the payment of any income return or the return of any capital is guaranteed by Newton or any related body corporate. Hypothetical or simulated performance results have certain inherent limitations.
Newton Investment Management Limited is exempt from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence under the Corporations Act 2001 in respect of the financial services provided to wholesale clients only; and is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) under UK laws, which differ from Australian laws. If this document is used or distributed in Australia, it is issued by BNY Mellon Investment Management Australia Ltd (ABN 56 102 482 815, AFS License No. 227865) located at Level 2, 1 Bligh Street, Sydney, NSW 2000.