It's been a rough few years for ESG-the popular shorthand for measuring and managing a company's environmental, social, and governance performance. Critics on the political left believe ESG is insufficient for addressing major societal issues such as climate change; critics on the right say ESG pushes a liberal agenda. The barrage of criticism has caused ESG to lose its luster among many executives. Yet the need for a transparent way to connect a company's financial performance with its ESG performance remains. It's time, says Oxford professor Robert G. Eccles, to take stock of ESG and chart a path forward. He acknowledges the complex challenges that still need to be resolved. Chief among them is whether to use single materiality (which focuses on shareholder value) or double materiality (which includes societal impact). In this article Eccles recommends a pragmatic approach for corporate leaders: clearly define corporate purpose, improve transparency in ESG reporting, and engage stakeholders constructively. These strategies will help companies manage ESG pressures by focusing on material issues that affect shareholder value while also acknowledging and addressing broader societal impacts.
The role of the CSO is undergoing a rapid and dramatic transformation. Historically CSOs have acted like stealth PR executives-their primary task was to tell an appealing story about corporate sustainability initiatives to the company's many stakeholders. Now, however, some CSOs have moved away from a role centered on messaging and instead are spearheading the true integration of material ESG (environmental, social, and governance) issues into corporate strategy. This pivotal change requires close collaboration with other members of the senior leadership team and active engagement with investors. This article argues for four major changes to the CSO role. The CSO should be involved in strategy and capital allocation; be more focused on and realistic about stakeholder interactions; be more fully engaged with investors; and be supported with sufficient resources and experÂtise throughout the entire organization, including on the board and senior leadership team. In an ideal world, the authors say, a stand-alone CSO role would become obsolete once companies fully integrate ESG considerations into their corporate strategy and operations. Until that day arrives, however, it is crucial to adapt and evolve the CSO role.
Despite their reputation in the 1980s as corporate raiders, most private equity firms attempt to improve the performance of their portfolio companies through better corporate governance. But while the G in ESG (environmental, social, and governance) has always been important in the industry, the E and the S have been virtually nonexistent. Private equity has been comfortable seeking returns with little concern for the long-term sustainability of portfolio companies or their wider impact on society. That needs to change, the authors write, because PE has grown so large that society's most urgent challenges can't be addressed without the industry's active participation in the sustainability movement. Having interviewed a large sample of executives who run PE firms and the asset owners that fund them, the authors offer recommendations for how private equity can emerge as a leader in the ESG field--to benefit the wider world as well as its own long-term performance.
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues have traditionally been of secondary concern to investors. But in recent years, institutional investors and pension funds have grown too large to diversify away from systemic risks, forcing them to consider the environmental and social impact of their portfolios. Analysis of interviews with 70 executives in 43 global institutional investing firms suggests that ESG is now top of mind for these leaders and that corporations will soon be held accountable by shareholders for their ESG performance. To respond to this shift in focus, companies must publish a statement of purpose, provide investors with integrated financial and ESG reports, increase the involvement of middle managers in ESG issues, invest in robust IT systems, and improve internal systems for measuring and reporting ESG and impact performance information.
Meeting the recommendations for disclosure put forth by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures might seem like a tough job. But if the oil & gas industry is any example, it's not as difficult as some might imagine -and there are excellent reasons for corporate boards to consider it.
In 2011, Aegon adopted integrated reporting - a corporate reporting approach that sought to present company performance in a holistic light by considering medium- to long-term issues, stakeholder opinions, and the relationship between material financial and nonfinancial data. By 2013, Aegon had reduced the page count of its annual corporate reporting documents, helped stakeholders gain a more thoroughgoing understanding of its strategy, and begun the transition from being a product manufacturer to a customer-centric company. Still, the company's integrated report was separate from its regulatory filing. Although work in an area where there was not much regulatory or legislative guidance assuaged the Disclosure Committee's fears of accidentally violating regulations or taking on extra liability by reporting on non-financial information that was difficult to verify by a third-party, some felt the report's status meant it had not driven some of the organizational change it could have. Could Aegon benefit from publishing its integrated report as the official regulatory document? How could Aegon create a more interactive, real-time integrated reporting website that was connected to the core of their strategy? How should Aegon Asset Management include the integration of EGS factors in its investment processes and engagement with portfolio companies? What should the next step be?
This case is about how the Boston Consulting Group has approached innovation from its founding to the present day. It discusses the role of the firm's talent market and client market in developing these innovations.
Too often, companies launch sustainability programs with the hope that they'll be financially rewarded for doing good, even when those programs aren't relevant to their strategy and operations. They fail to understand the trade-offs between financial performance and performance on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. Improving one typically comes at a cost to the other. But it doesn't have to be this way. It's possible to simultaneously boost both financial and ESG performance--if you focus strategically on issues that are the most "material" to shareholder value, and you develop major innovations in products, processes, and business models that prioritize those concerns. Maps being developed by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, which rank the materiality of 43 issues for 88 industries, can provide valuable guidance. And broad initiatives undertaken by three companies--Natura, Dow Chemical, and CLP Group--demonstrate the kind of innovations that will push performance into new territory. Communicating the benefits to stakeholders is also critical, which is why integrated reports, which combine financial and ESG reporting, are now gaining in popularity.
Telefonica, one of the largest telecommunication companies in the world and headquartered in Spain, has been issuing a corporate sustainability report since 2002. In its 2011 Sustainability report, the company included a "materiality matrix," and was one of only five of the 97 companies in Spain that produced a sustainability report that year. The case describes the purpose of the materiality matrix, how it was developed, and the opportunities the company sees for improving it.
This case presents a 20-year history of the evolution of corporate governance and corporate reporting in South Africa starting in 1992 with a focus on the three King codes of corporate governance (King I in 1994, King II in 2000, and King III in 2009). From a reporting perspective these reforms culminated in the "apply to explain why not" mandate for integrated reporting by all companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.
Addleshaw-Goddard (AG), the 15th largest law firm in the UK, is seeking ways to serve larger clients on more important legal matters. Part of this strategy involves its "Client Development Centre (CDC)," an innovative idea and set of services launched by Dr. Jim Hever who holds a Ph.D. in Strategic Leadership Development. The mission of the CDC is to improve the capabilities of clients' in-house legal departments by making them better partners with the business units and improving their leadership skills. The CDC has adopted an innovative pricing structure. Rather than charging direct fees for these consulting services, it proposed to the client that it contract with the firm for five times this amount in legal fees that might otherwise have gone to another law firm. It is in this way, AG hopes to increase its position with its larger clients. AG has also developed a very systematic program for identifying and serving its key clients, developed in collaboration with Cranfield School of Management. It is these clients that will be the focus of the efforts for the CDC. In addition, the firm has co-developed a training program with Cranfield to improve the skills of its own partners. The case explores whether these initiatives will lead to a long-term competitive advantage. The firm believes what really will produce competitive advantage is its "Me-To-You Mindset" initiative that encourages partners to look at the world through their clients' eyes. At the end of the case Hever is reflecting on a proposal he submitted for providing CDC services to one of the largest UK companies. The general counsel wants to pay for these services in cash should he decide to accept the proposal, rather than hiring AG for more legal work. Hever is wondering if this is a good way to take advantage of recent reforms allowing law firms to provide other professional services, like consulting, or if this is "off-strategy" for the mission of the CDC.
Shanghai Diligence Law Firm continued with its approach to grow through a merger, rather than organically, and was eventually merged into a bigger law firm in China. After the merger, a refined A-B-C-D model is still in use as compensation system, although the challenge remains as for how to enhance both willingness and capabilities of associates to improve team performance at the firm.
"High sustainability" companies significantly outperformed their counterparts over an 18-year period in terms of both stock market and accounting criteria, such as return on assets and return on equity. They also exhibited lower performance volatility. Currently, organizations that exhibit a broad-based commitment to sustainability on the basis of their original corporate DNA are few and far between. For most companies, becoming sustainable involves a conscious and continuing effort to build long-term value for shareholders by contributing to a sustainable society. The authors studied the organizational models of companies that they refer to as "sustainable" by comparing them with companies that they call "traditional." They focused on two primary questions: (1) How do sustainable companies create the conditions that embed sustainability in the company's strategy and operations, and (2) What are the specific elements of sustainable companies' cultures that differentiate them from those of traditional companies? The authors have developed an identity and cultural model for how to create a sustainable company. While the model is straightforward, implementation is by no means easy, because it is grounded in largescale change - something that few companies seek out or do well. The first stage involves reframing the company's identity through leadership commitment and external engagement. The second stage involves codifying the new identity through employee engagement and mechanisms of execution. Both are ongoing processes. Once the second stage begins, the two stages reinforce each other. Employee engagement enables even more sophisticated external engagement, since a broader range of employees will be able to effectively engage with outside stakeholders. Mechanisms of execution bind leadership commitment, since these organizational-level attributes continue from one generation of leaders to the next.
In 1996, Ted Happold, the founder of the engineering services firm Buro Happold passed away and Padraic Kelly became the firm's new Managing Director (MD). One of his first initiatives was "Aim for Growth" which was intended to help the firm grow beyond its current size where it was constrained by a structure of having each of the firm's founding partners responsible for a group of 25-30 engineers. This initiative was very successful but the firm then found itself with a lack of leadership skills at all levels of the organization to manage a company of a much larger size, growing by a factor of 10 over 10 years. The lack of leadership skills was recognized by clients who gave the firm feedback on this. In response, Buro Happold developed its first formal internal training programs under the name of "Archimedes Academy." The first two programs were: (1) the Job Leader Program, targeted for senior engineers and designed to help them be more effective in working with clients, and (2) the Project Leader Program, targeted for project leaders and designed to help them develop the "softer" management skills to complement their technical ones. A distinctive aspect of Archimedes Academy is that these first programs were developed and delivered by the cohorts who first attended them. Rather than partner with a university to develop an accredited program, the firm decided it would be better off developing the program itself, with the help of an outside consultant who had done something similar at his previous employer, in order to make sure the programs were specific enough to Buro Happold's needs and relevant to the firm's culture. The first two programs were a big success and the firm expanded the training offerings under the Archimedes Banner.