Category: ESG
How are companies reacting to anti-ESG efforts?
It’s not just Mickey Mouse that’s feeling the heat from anti-ESG efforts lately. Reuters reports that, so far this year, legislators have filed about 99 so-called “ESG backlash” bills compared with only 39 in 2022; as of April 3, they report, “seven of the bills had been enacted into law, 20 were effectively dead, and 72 were still pending.” What are they about? A number of them are designed to protect fossil fuel companies from climate-related demands of various investment funds, while others relate to “hot-button environmental, social and governance (ESG) topics like abortion rights and firearms.” Not to mention the 68 anti-ESG proposals submitted this year to date (compared to 45 in 2022) as reported by Axios, citing data from the nonprofit Sustainable Investments Institute. According to the article, about a third of these proposals relate to corporate diversity endeavors, requesting that companies “report on the ‘risks’ that their anti-discrimination or racial justice efforts pose to their business.” Several others request that companies “avoid public policy positions unless there’s a business justification” or report on the risks arising out of their attempts to “achieve net zero” or other “decarbonization goals.” What is the fallout from these anti-ESG attempts? How can companies address the growing investor demands for ESG disclosure without—or perhaps despite—creating the impression among ESG opponents that they are just pursuing “an agenda”—or “Satan’s plan” according to Utah’s State Treasurer (as quoted in Reuters)?
What we need to know about corporate governance—but don’t
In this paper, Seven Gaping Holes in Our Knowledge of Corporate Governance, from the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford, the authors observe that it “is extremely difficult to produce high-quality, fundamental insights into corporate governance.” Why is that? Well there are lots of reasons. According to the authors, instead of the theory, measurement and analysis that you might expect—given that corporate governance is a social science—the “dialogue about corporate governance is dominated by rhetoric, assertions, and opinions that—while strongly held—are not necessarily supported by either applicable theory or empirical evidence.” And even empirical work from academics has serious shortcomings, often detecting a pattern that is not amenable to specific application or making findings that are too specific to generalize. Or, studies might find correlation but not permit attribution of causation; or it may be hard to suss out key variables that may not be publicly observable. As a result, there remain “central issues where insufficient or inadequate study has left us unable to answer basic questions, and where key assumptions relied upon by experts have not been verified or validated.” The paper attempts to identify some of them and home in on potential further areas of study.
Lots of shareholder proposals on ESG this proxy season—and quite a few anti-ESG proposals too
Notwithstanding legislative and executive action by several states in opposition to the supposed “woke” stances of some businesses on ESG and ESG investing—or perhaps because of it—this proxy season will see a significant number of shareholder proposals related to ESG. (See this PubCo post and this PubCo post.) As described in the 100+-page Proxy Preview 2023 from the Sustainable Investments Institute, As You Sow and Proxy Impact, there have been 542 ESG-related proposals as of mid-February and the number is “on track to match or exceed last year’s unprecedented final total of 627.” Of course, proponents of shareholder proposals don’t often expect to gain a majority vote—even if they did, the proposals are rarely binding. Rather, the goal is frequently to raise the issue for management and shareholders and hope to secure a substantial enough vote in favor to convince management to take action or, as the WSJ reports, to “create pressure for companies to change [or] to take a position on hot-button issues.” The Preview identified as the two biggest changes for the 2023 proxy season a continued increase in climate change-related proposals and, post-Dobbs, a significant number of proposals related to reproductive health. There has also been an increase in proposals identified as “anti-ESG,” and the Preview expects these proposals to increase, despite “the cool reception they receive.” According to a co-author of the report, “[c]omplex environmental and social challenges are not going away just because they prompt controversy….Proxy season will give companies feedback on reform ideas, but there’s no indication attacks on ESG investing are going to dampen investor appetite for facts and disclosure, which make the capital markets work better.”
COSO introduces “internal control over sustainability reporting”
Under the pressure of institutional investors, environmental groups, employees, consumers and other stakeholders, many companies have sought to demonstrate their bona fides when it comes to ESG through disclosure about their sustainability efforts, goals and achievements, whether in periodic reports or in separate sustainability reports. But, as reporting increases, so do concerns by some about potential greenwashing. How can companies assure the quality of their sustainability reporting and create more trust and confidence among stakeholders? One way might be through effective internal controls. So far, however, according to a new report from Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, known as COSO, ”[f]ew best practices have been established. While some larger institutions have progressed in building controls around environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting, many organizations have designed ad hoc controls around certain key sustainable business metrics. Many also perform internal verification and assurance procedures to ensure management comfort with this information. Yet few of them seem to have developed effective, integrated systems of internal control over their material or decision-useful sustainable business information.” Now, leveraging insights gleaned from development of the most widely used internal control framework—the COSO Internal Control-Integrated Framework—COSO has developed the concept of ”internal control over sustainability reporting” (ICSR). In its new report, which weighs in at 114 pages, COSO provides supplemental guidance that explains and interprets how each of the 17 principles in the 2013 version of the COSO ICIF applies to sustainable business activities and sustainable business information. According to the authors, “[i]nternal controls have value beyond compliance and external financial reporting. Effective internal controls can help an organization articulate its purpose, set its objectives and strategy, and grow on a sustained basis with confidence and integrity in all types of information.” As companies seek to “generate sustained value—ethically and responsibly—over the longer term,” with an emphasis on sustainability and ESG, both companies and their stakeholders need effective controls and oversight to provide the reliable and high-quality data needed for “decision making in this changing world.”
Sustainability reports—not a liability-free zone
In April of last year, as described in this press release, the SEC filed a complaint against Vale S.A., a publicly traded (NYSE) Brazilian mining company and one of the world’s largest iron ore producers, charging that it made “false and misleading claims about the safety of its dams prior to the January 2019 collapse of its Brumadinho dam. The collapse killed 270 people, caused immeasurable environmental and social harm, and led to a loss of more than $4 billion in Vale’s market capitalization.” The SEC alleged that Vale “fraudulently assured investors that the company adhered to the ‘strictest international practices’ in evaluating dam safety and that 100 percent of its dams were certified to be in stable condition.” Significantly, these statements were contained, not just in Vale’s SEC filings, but also, in large part, in its sustainability reports. In discussing the charges, the press release made reference to the SEC’s Climate and ESG Task Force formed in 2021 in the Division of Enforcement “with a mandate to identify material gaps or misstatements in issuers’ ESG disclosures, like the false and misleading claims made by Vale.” On Tuesday, the SEC announced that Vale had agreed to pay $55.9 million to settle the SEC charges. According to the Associate Director of Enforcement, the SEC’s “action against Vale illustrates the interplay between the company’s sustainability reports and its obligations under the federal securities law….The terms of today’s settlement, if approved by the court, will levy a significant financial penalty against Vale and demonstrate that public companies can and should be held accountable for material misrepresentations in their ESG-related disclosures, just as they would for any other material misrepresentations.”
Be on the alert for California’s Climate Corporate Data Accountability bill
If you’re waiting with bated breath to find out what the SEC has in store for public companies in its final version of its climate disclosure regulations (see this PubCo post, this PubCo post and this PubCo post), you might also want to take a look at this California bill—the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253)—previously known as the Climate Corporate Accountability Act when it went belly up last year after sailing through one chamber of the legislature but coming up shy in the second (see this PubCo post). In fact, this year, the press release announces, the bill is part of California’s Climate Accountability Package, a “suite of bills that work together to improve transparency, standardize disclosures, align public investments with climate goals, and raise the bar on corporate action to address the climate crisis. At a time when rising anti-science sentiment is driving strong pushback against responsible business practices like risk disclosure and ESG investing,” the press release continues, “these bills leverage the power of California’s market to continue the state’s long tradition of setting the gold standard on environmental protection for the nation and the world.” If signed into law this time, the bill, which was introduced at the end of January and has a hearing scheduled in March, would mandate disclosure of GHG emissions data—Scopes 1, 2 and 3—by all U.S. business entities with total annual revenues in excess of a billion dollars that “do business in California.” The bill’s mandate would exceed, in several key respects, the requirements in the current SEC climate proposal. Whether this new bill will face the same fate as its predecessor remains to be seen.
Did the SEC’s rule changes succeed in transforming the risk factors section? What about climate risk?
Remember back in 2020, when the SEC adopted major amendments to Reg S-K designed to modernize the descriptions of business, legal proceedings and risk factors? You might recall that the SEC had long grumbled about “the lengthy and generic nature of the risk factor disclosure presented by many registrants”; to address that concern, the SEC instituted a number of requirements and “incentives” to encourage companies to be, um, more succinct. (See this PubCo post.) Among these changes were a new requirement to include a risk factor summary if the risk factor section exceeded 15 pages and changing the disclosure standard from “most significant” factors to “material” factors. In addition, because the SEC considered untailored, generic risks to be less informative and to contribute to increased length, it sought to discourage their use by requiring companies to organize the risk factors under relevant headings, with generic risk factors located at the end under a separate caption, “General Risk Factors.” So how’d that go? Did the rule changes achieve their purpose? Apparently, not so much—at least not at the largest public companies—according to this paper, published on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, from a group of authors from Deloitte and the USC Marshall School of Business. The authors also drilled down more specifically on risk factors related to climate change, where the increase in prevalence was dramatic (and probably also contributed to the increased length of risk factor sections in general).
How do companies view the current political environment and what can they do about it?
According to a new survey and related report from The Conference Board, 78% of US companies characterized the current political environment as “extremely challenging” or “very challenging” for companies—and 20% more described the environment as merely “challenging.” That totals 98%. (Who are the 2% who don’t find the political environment challenging?) Most striking about that data point is the stark contrast with the results of a survey conducted in 2021, which showed that only—only?—47% of companies attached one of the “extremely challenging” or “very challenging” labels to the political environment. What’s more, 42% said that they expected a “more challenging landscape in the next three years.” What’s fueling this shift in perspective? The Conference Board explores the reasons underlying this political environment and suggests ways for companies to address it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.