Category: ESG
Activist CEOs speak out—is there a way to do it better?
It feels like CEOs are stepping into it—the political fray, that is—all the time these days. And recently, there has been a lot of pressure on CEOs to voice their views on political, environmental and social issues. According to the Global Chair of Reputation at Edelman, the expectation that CEOs will be leaders of change is very high. Last year, Edelman’s Trust Barometer showed those expectations at a record high of 65 percent; “[t]his year, the call to action appears to be yet more urgent—a rise by 11 points in the public’s expectation that CEOs will speak up and lead change. Today, some 76 percent of respondents believe CEOs need to step up.” Similarly, in this year’s annual letter to CEOs, BlackRock CEO Laurence Fink focused on the responsibility of corporations to step into the breach created by political dysfunction: “Unnerved by fundamental economic changes and the failure of government to provide lasting solutions, society is increasingly looking to companies, both public and private, to address pressing social and economic issues. These issues range from protecting the environment to retirement to gender and racial inequality, among others.” In the absence of action from government, he counsels CEOs, “the world needs your leadership.” (See this PubCo post.) To be sure, a number of CEOs have jumped in to meet this challenge. But this study, “The Double-Edged Sword of CEO Activism,” suggests that, notwithstanding the public perception of widespread CEO activism, the incidence of CEO activism is actually relatively low. And public reaction seems to vary depending on the topic, but can, in some cases, lead to consumer backlash. Is there a better way to handle it? The authors of this article think so.
How should we engage with investors on sustainability?
In this report, Change the Conversation: Redefining How Companies Engage Investors on Sustainability, sustainability nonprofit Ceres provides some guidance on how companies should best engage with their investors on the issue of sustainability. While almost half of the 600 largest U.S. public companies communicate with investors about environmental, social and governance issues, according to Ceres, they could be doing a much better job of it. To that end, Ceres offers a set of nine recommendations “to guide companies toward more meaningful and effective investor engagement on ESG issues.” What is the key message? Don’t “fall into the trap of positioning sustainability as the ‘right thing to do,’ without making the connection to the business case.” And make the business case for sustainability by tying it to financial performance and demonstrating that it can drive business value. Whether or not you buy into the whole program, you may still find Ceres’ perspective and examples provided helpful in guiding your engagement efforts.
SEC Chair Clayton discusses human capital disclosure
In remarks for a telephone call on February 6 with SEC Investor Advisory Committee members, SEC Chair Jay Clayton briefly discussed three topics: disclosure requirements in general, human capital disclosure and proxy plumbing, the latter two topics being subjects of the committee’s call.
Have we reached an inflection point on environmental and social shareholder proposals?
In this thoughtful article from the Managing Editor at ISS Analytics, The Long View: US Proxy Voting Trends on E&S Issues from 2000 to 2018, the author contends that, notwithstanding high-level data showing relatively static median vote support for shareholder proposals over the last 19 years, that data is deceptive: “the reality is that investor voting behavior among owners of U.S. companies has changed significantly—perhaps almost revolutionarily—over the past two decades.” What’s more, “the most significant change in investors’ voting behavior pertains to environmental and social issues, as these proposals are earning record levels of support in recent years.”
BlackRock CEO promotes corporate “purpose”: should corporations step into the governmental vacuum?
In this year’s annual letter to CEOs, BlackRock CEO Laurence Fink once again advocates the importance of a long-term approach, at the same time mourning the prevalence of political dysfunction and acknowledging the resulting increase in public anger and frustration: “some of the world’s leading democracies have descended into wrenching political dysfunction, which has exacerbated, rather than quelled, this public frustration. Trust in multilateralism and official institutions is crumbling.” For a moment, I thought he was going to veer off into “American carnage,” but instead his focus is on the responsibility of corporations to step into the breach: “Unnerved by fundamental economic changes and the failure of government to provide lasting solutions, society is increasingly looking to companies, both public and private, to address pressing social and economic issues. These issues range from protecting the environment to retirement to gender and racial inequality, among others.”
New reporting standard for human capital management
As discussed in this PubCo post, human capital management has become a significant concern of institutional investors. For example, for 2018, asset manager BlackRock identified human capital management as one of its engagement priorities, echoing the exhortation from BlackRock CEO Laurence Fink in his 2018 annual letter to public companies: with governments seeming to fall short, it is up to the private sector to “respond to broader societal challenges”; companies must look to benefit their broader communities and all of their stakeholders, including employees, and that involves investment in efforts to create a diverse workforce, to develop retraining programs for employees in an increasingly automated world and to help prepare workers for retirement. (See this PubCo post.) Some institutional investors have also encouraged companies to provide more transparency on HCM practices. But what exactly should they disclose?
Clayton Q&A and ESG at the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee meeting
At last week’s meeting of the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee, the Committee members held a Q&A session with SEC Chair Jay Clayton, followed by a discussion of environmental, social and governance disclosure, where the main question appeared to be whether to recommend that ESG disclosure be required through regulation, continued as voluntary disclosure but under a particular framework advocated by the SEC or continued only to the extent of private ordering as is currently the case.
Among the points addressed in the Q&A was a potential government shutdown. Clayton said that the SEC was planning for a possible shutdown, and that, as in previous shutdowns, he expected the SEC would be able to continue its operations for a number of days post-shutdown.
SASB issues sustainability accounting standards for 77 industries
Way back in 2016, the SEC issued a Concept Release requesting comment on an enormous variety of potential changes to Reg S-K, including sustainability. (See this PubCo post.) As reported by BNA, then-Director of Corp Fin, Keith Higgins, advised that the highest proportion of comments received on the Reg S-K Concept Release related to better environmental and social responsibility disclosure. He observed that, of the 360 “unique” comment letters (i.e., non-form letters) received, about 80% “were looking for improved sustainability disclosure.” The problem, he recognized, was that those types of sustainability disclosures were not necessarily amenable to one-size-fits-all rulemaking. According to Higgins, “[c]limate change tops the list of issues….” However, he acknowledged, the issues involved in sustainability “cut across 79 different industries and aren’t suited to a constant set of rules….‘Everyone recognizes that one-size-fits-all disclosure is likely not to be so effective in the sustainability area—others recognize the enormity of that task.’” (See this PubCo post.) Now, independent standard-setting organization SASB, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, seems to have come to the rescue, announcing that it has published a series of sustainability accounting standards specifically tailored for 77 industries. According to the SASB Chair, the publication of these standards represents an “important milestone” because they provide “codified, market-based standards for measuring, managing, and reporting on sustainability factors that drive value and affect financial performance.” Will the SEC now take up the challenge of sustainability disclosure?
Heat’s on for climate change disclosure rules
A new rulemaking petition advocating that the SEC mandate environmental, social and governance disclosure under a standardized comprehensive framework has just been submitted by two academics and multiple institutional investors, representing over $5 trillion in assets. Not only is ESG disclosure material and relevant to understanding long-term risks, the petition contends, but the variety of approaches currently employed highlight the need for a more coherent standard that will provide clarity, completeness and comparability. In the past, concerns have been raised about whether uniform disclosure rules could really be effective for ESG. Can those concerns be overcome?
Senator Warren introduces the Accountable Capitalism Act
According to this column in the LA Times, it’s the “single most pernicious idea in modern American finance.” Can you guess? It’s the idea “that the corporation exists to ‘maximize shareholder wealth,’” the columnist proclaims. “As the mantra has evolved since it was declared by conservative economist Milton Friedman in 1970, it has come to mean ‘maximize shareholder wealth to the exclusion of everything else.’ The harvest has been stagnating worker wages, squeezed suppliers, noxious government economic policies, and the steady flow of corporate income to the top 1%. It’s long past time to bury this bad idea in the grave.” Needless to say, many would take issue with the columnist’s view, but probably not Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has recently introduced the “Accountable Capitalism Act,” which would mandate that specified large companies have as a corporate purpose identified in their charters—their new federal charters—the creation of a “general public benefit.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.