Attracting Long‐Term Shareholders

Corporate CEOs often say they don't hear enough from shareholders about strategic issues related to long‐term value creation. At the same time, they claim to hear with predictable regularity from short‐term investors about their success (or failure) in hitting consensus earnings targets. But as the authors of this article begin by noting, there is mounting evidence that companies get the shareholders they deserve—that companies that provide quarterly earnings guidance and otherwise focus investor attention on near‐term earnings targets tend to attract more transient investors. The authors go on to argue that companies with a compelling long‐term vision can expect to benefit not only from more farsighted managerial decision‐making, but also from building a base of longer‐term investors who share management's view of success, and how it can and ought to be achieved. Such a shift in strategic focus and disclosure toward longer‐run performance creates a virtuous cycle—one in which companies that gain the interest and backing of investors with longer horizons end up reinforcing management's confidence to undertake value‐adding investments in their company's future. Even if most companies can't pick their shareholders, they can develop an investor engagement strategy designed to attract long‐term investors. In this article, the chairman and president of FCLTGlobal outline the underlying strategy behind long‐term investor relations and the four key components of such an approach.     

Financial Management Association Roundtable on Stock Market Pricing and Value‐Based Management

A group of academics and practitioners addresses a number of questions about the workings of the stock market and its implications for corporate decision‐making. The discussion begins by asking what the market wants from companies: Is it mainly just steady increases in earnings per share, which are then “capitalized” by the market at the current industry P/E multiple to produce a higher stock price? Or does the market pay attention to the “quality,” or sustainability, of earnings? And are there more revealing measures of annual corporate performance than GAAP earnings—measures that would provide investors with a better sense of companies' future cash‐generating capacity and returns on capital? The consensus was that although many investors respond uncritically to earnings numbers, the most sophisticated and influential investors consider far more than current earnings when pricing stocks. And although the stock market is far from omniscient, the heightened scrutiny of companies resulting from the growth of hedge funds, private equity, and investor activism of all kinds appears to be making the market “more efficient” in building information into stock prices. The second part of the discussion explored the implications of this view of the market pricing process for corporate strategy and the evaluation of major investment opportunities. For example, do acquisitions have to be “EPS‐accretive” to be value‐adding, or is there a more reliable means of assessing an investment's value added than pro forma EPS effects? Does the DCF valuation method always offer a better guide to value than the method of comparables used by many Wall Street dealmakers? And under what circumstances are the relatively new real options valuation approaches likely to provide a significant advantage over conventional methods? The main message offered to corporate practitioners is to avoid letting cosmetic accounting effects get in the way of value‐adding investment and operating decisions. As the corporate record on acquisitions makes painfully clear, there is no guarantee that an accretive deal will turn out to be value‐increasing (in fact, the odds are that it will not). As for choosing a valuation method, there appears to be a time and place for each of the major methods—comparables, DCF, and real options—and the key to success is understanding which method is best suited to the circumstances.     

The Purpose of the Firm,Valuation, and the Management of Intangibles

This article provides a different way of thinking about, and responding to, four important issues that confront most public companies. First, in articulating the overarching corporate purpose, the author suggests a middle ground between shareholder value maximization and stakeholder theory that aims to achieve the end result of value maximization while taking a “holistic” view that meets most of the demands of stakeholder advocates. As described by the author, there are four critical steps for management and boards in creating such companies: (1) communicating a vision of the company and its purpose to employees as well as investors (and other key outsiders); (2) organizing to survive and prosper through efficiency and innovation; (3) working continuously to develop win‐win relationships with stakeholders and other companies; and (4) taking care of the environment and future generations. Second, in thinking about the corporate purpose and how to evaluate success in achieving it, managements and boards need a valuation model that provides a clear and insightful connection between long‐term corporate performance and market valuation, and how both might be expected to change as the firm matures. A strong case is presented for the life‐cycle valuation model, widely used by money management organizations, in which a company's projected cash flows reflect an expected “fade” in both economic returns on capital and reinvestment rates. The potential uses of this model are illustrated using lifecycle corporate performance data for 3M during the past 50 years. Third, in an effort to capture the value of innovation and investment in intangible assets, the author presents an alternative to the accounting approach of capitalizing and amortizing such assets that attempts to capture their expected future benefits by using more favorable forecasts of long‐term fade rates. Fourth, the author shows how incorporating Life‐cycle Reviews for each of a company's business units as part of its Integrated Reporting could improve management's resource allocation decisions, help build a shareholder base of long‐term investors, and provide management with the support and confidence to resist Wall Street's excessive emphasis on quarterly earnings.     

Session I: Corporate Purpose and Governance

In this first of five sessions of a recent Columbia Law School symposium devoted to discussion of his new book, Prosperity—and The Purpose of the Corporation, Oxford University's Colin Mayer begins by calling for a “radical reinterpretation” of the corporate mission. For all but the last 50 or so of its 2,000‐year history, the corporation has combined commercial activities with a public purpose. But since Milton Friedman's famous pronouncement in 1970 that the social goal of the corporation is to maximize its own profits, the gap between the social and private interests served by corporations appears to have grown ever wider, helping fuel the global outbreaks of populist protest and indictments of capitalism that fill today's media. In Mayer's reinterpretation, the boards of all companies will produce and publish statements of corporate purpose that envision some greater social good than maximizing shareholder value. To that end, he urges companies to make continuous investments of their financial capital and other resources in developing other forms of corporate capital—human, social, and natural—and to account for such investments in the same way they now account for their investments in physical capital. Although the author appears to prefer that such changes be mandatory, enacted through new legislation and enforced by regulators and the courts, his main efforts are directed at persuading the largest institutional owners of corporations—many of whom are already favorably predisposed to ESG—to support these corporate initiatives. Marty Lipton, after expressing enthusiasm about Mayer's proposals, suggests that mandating such changes is likely neither feasible nor desirable, but that attempts—like his own New Paradigm—to gain the acceptance and support of large shareholders is the most promising strategy. Ron Gilson, on the other hand, after voicing Lipton's skepticism about the enforceability of such statements of purpose, issues a number of warnings. One is about the political risks associated with ever more concentrated ownership of public companies in a world where populist distrust of all concentrations of wealth and power is clearly on the rise. But most troubling for the company themselves is the confusion such proposals could create for corporate boards whose responsibility is to limit two temptations facing corporate managements: short‐termism, or underinvestment in the corporate future to boost near‐term earnings (and presumably stock prices); and what Gilson calls hyperopia, or overinvestment designed to preserve growth (and management's jobs) at all costs.     

Identifying and Attracting the "right" Investors: Evidence on the Behavior of Institutional Investors

This article summarizes the findings of research the author has conducted over the past seven years that aims to answer a number of questions about institutional investors: Are there significant differences among institutional investors in time horizon and other trading practices that would enable such investors to be classified into types on the basis of their observable behavior? Assuming the answer to the first is yes, do corporate managers respond differently to the pressures created by different types of investors– and, by implication, are certain kinds of investors more desirable from corporate management's point of view? What kinds of companies tend to attract each type of investor, and how does a company's disclosure policy affect that process? The author's approach identifies three categories of institutional investors: (1) “transient” institutions, which exhibit high portfolio turnover and own small stakes in portfolio companies; (2) “dedicated” holders, which provide stable ownership and take large positions in individual firms; and (3) “quasi‐indexers,” which also trade infrequently but own small stakes (similar to an index strategy). As might be expected, the disproportionate presence of transient institutions in a company's investor base appears to intensify pressure for short‐term performance while also resulting in excess volatility in the stock price. Also not surprising, transient investors are attracted to companies with investor relations activities geared toward forward‐looking information and “news events,” like management earnings forecasts, that constitute trading opportunities for such investors. By contrast, quasi‐indexers and dedicated institutions are largely insensitive to shortterm performance and their presence is associated with lower stock price volatility. The research also suggests that companies that focus their disclosure activities on historical information as opposed to earnings forecasts tend to attract quasi‐indexers instead of transient investors. In sum, the author's research suggests that changes in disclosure practices have the potential to shift the composition of a firm's investor base away from transient investors and toward more patient capital. By removing some of the external pressures for short‐term performance, such a shift could encourage managers to establish a culture based on long‐run value maximization.     

Estimating the Cost of Capital Using Stock Prices and Near‐term Earnings Forecasts

Earnings‐based valuation models, although long used by finance practitioners, have become increasingly popular among finance academics as well. Among the most important reasons for academics' increased acceptance of earnings‐based valuation is the well‐documented claim that earnings over a short (three‐ to four‐year) forecast horizon tend to capture a large fraction—as much as 80%—of today's value, much more than is captured by near‐term forecasts of free cash flow, the measure long advocated by finance theorists as the basis for DCF valuation. But most important for the purposes of this article, the recognition that such a large percentage of the current values of many public companies is captured within a short forecast horizon has led to a large academic literature that uses earnings‐based valuation models together with current stock prices to “back out” estimates of the companies' implied expected rates of return and costs of equity capital. The effectiveness and precision of such reverse engineering depend on the reliability of the forecasts both within a finite forecast horizon and beyond. And although the models tested in academic work, which are based on large samples of forecasts and hard‐to‐verify assumptions about earnings beyond the forecast horizon, often do not appear to provide useful estimates, the author argues that such reverse engineering of the valuation models should become straightforward and workable once reliable forecasts of earnings are obtained—say, from the corporate (or investment) analysts who are familiar with the operations of the companies they work for (or cover).     

Bridging Sustainability and Finance: The Value Driver Adjustment Approach

Even though most large corporations view sustainability considerations and concerns as having the potential to affect their revenue and profits, and studies have shown that sustainability can affect stock returns, investors and corporate managers continue to struggle to incorporate such concerns into their financial decision‐making. As a consequence, the valuation effects of sustainability issues are not fully reflected in either the valuation of companies by investors or in capital investment decisions by corporate managers. The author argues that sustainability can be integrated into both of these kinds of financial decision‐making by linking it to business models, competitive positions, and value drivers using what the author calls a “value‐driver adjustment” (VDA) approach. The basic idea is simple: material sustainability issues affect business models and competitive positions, which in turn affect the company's value drivers—notably, sales, margins, and capital. The VDA approach explicitly considers these linkages by taking three steps: (1) identifying a company's material sustainability issues; (2) analyzing how these issues are expected to affect the company's business model and competitive position; and (3) quantifying the effects of such changes in business model and competitive position on the company's value drivers, including its cost of capital. In the first part of the article, the author provides an investor perspective that shows how sustainability can be integrated into investment decisions by asset managers. There he explains how and why ESG integration has so far failed to become mainstream, and what needs to be done to make it successful. The second part of this article takes the corporate perspective and shows how sustainability can be linked to value drivers using much the same ingredients as in asset management, but slightly different tools that can help corporate managers incorporate sustainability concerns into strategy and operations, including the finance function. And in closing, the author brings together corporate and investor perspectives while showing how sustainability programs can be used to make the relationship between companies and their shareholders both stronger and longer‐lasting.     

Three Common Misconceptions About Markets (or Why Earnings Smoothing,Guidance, and Concern About Meeting Consensus Estimates are Likely to be Counterproductive)

Although many executives strive for stable earnings growth, finance theory and research have long suggested that the most sophisticated investors aren't especially concerned about “normal” levels of variability in reported earnings. More recent research by the authors and their McKinsey colleagues also suggests that extraordinary efforts to achieve steady growth in earnings per share quarter after quarter aren't worthwhile and may actually hurt the companies that undertake them. While such efforts to smooth earnings involve real costs, the research finds no meaningful relationship between earnings variability and valuation multiples or shareholder returns. Based on these findings, as well as considerable experience in advising companies, the authors offer the following advice to senior executives:

• Managers shouldn't shape their earnings targets or budgets just to meet consensus estimates. Companies that reduce spending on product development, sales and marketing, or other contributors to long‐term growth are sacrificing long‐term performance for the appearance of short‐term strength.
• As the year progresses, managers should likewise avoid costly, shortsighted actions to meet the consensus. Resist the temptation to offer customers end‐of‐year discounts to boost current‐year sales, or to resort to creative accounting with accruals. Investors recognize these for what they are: borrowing from next year's earnings.

Finally, companies should reconsider the practice of quarterly earnings guidance. Instead of providing frequent earnings guidance, companies should design their investor communication policies to help the market to understand their strategy, the underlying value drivers of their business, and the most important risks associated with the business—in short, to understand the long‐term health and value of the enterprise.     

Is Managerial Myopia a Persistent Governance Problem?

Critics of U.S. corporations have long argued that companies are overly focused on short‐term results and, as a consequence, sacrifice their own long‐run value and competitiveness. These criticisms have expanded in recent years to include those from prominent politicians, investors, consultants, and academics. If such criticisms have merit, they would imply a massive governance failure in which there has been decades of underinvestment with little adjustment on the part of managers, boards, or the market for corporate control. This article evaluates the economic underpinnings of these criticisms and analyzes their implications in the context of empirical evidence produced by several decades of research on corporate investment policies, the outcomes of corporate control events, investor horizons, and the market pricing of companies with little if any earnings. In reviewing the findings of these studies, the author finds little evidence to support the view that U.S. companies sacrifice long‐run value and competitiveness by systematically underinvesting. First, although U.S. companies have indeed cut back on tangible investments such as property, plant, and equipment, these cutbacks have been more than offset by the dramatic growth in investment in intangibles, such as spending on developing knowledge capital, brand‐building, and IT infrastructure. Second, when subjected to events that have the effect of reducing managerial control over investment policies and transferring control to outside investors—such as leveraged buyouts and recapitalizations, forced CEO dismissals, and shareholder activist campaigns—companies tend to reduce, not increase, investment spending. In fact, it is difficult to find any corporate control threats that have had the goal or effect of increasing investment. Third, and at the same time, the rising concentration of large institutional investors, including indexers such as BlackRock and Vanguard, suggests that investors have become, if anything, more long‐term oriented over time. Fourth, there is no evidence that the market shuns companies that have yet to report large (or indeed any) earnings. These findings suggest that curbing overinvestment, and not discouraging myopia and underinvestment, may well still be the larger corporate governance challenge facing investors when monitoring and attempting to influence the performance of U.S. companies.     

ESG Integration in Investment Management: Myths and Realities

The number of public companies reporting ESG information grew from fewer than 20 in the early 1990s to 8,500 by 2014. Moreover, by the end of 2014, over 1,400 institutional investors that manage some $60 trillion in assets had signed the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI). Nevertheless, companies with high ESG “scores” have continued to be viewed by mainstream investors as unlikely to produce competitive shareholder returns, in part because of the findings of older studies showing low returns from the social responsibility investing of the 1990s. But studies of more recent periods suggest that companies with significant ESG programs have actually outperformed their competitors in a number of important ways. The authors’ aim in this article is to set the record straight on the financial performance of sustainable investing while also correcting a number of other widespread misconceptions about this rapidly growing set of principles and methods: Myth Number 1: ESG programs reduce returns on capital and long‐run shareholder value. Reality: Companies committed to ESG are finding competitive advantages in product, labor, and capital markets; and portfolios that have integrated “material” ESG metrics have provided average returns to their investors that are superior to those of conventional portfolios, while exhibiting lower risk. Myth Number 2: ESG is already well integrated into mainstream investment management. Reality: The UNPRI signatories have committed themselves only to adhering to a set of principles for responsible investment, a standard that falls well short of integrating ESG considerations into their investment decisions. Myth Number 3: Companies cannot influence the kind of shareholders who buy their shares, and corporate managers must often sacrifice sustainability goals to meet the quarterly earnings targets of increasingly short‐term‐oriented investors. Reality: Companies that pursue major sustainability initiatives, and publicize them in integrated reports and other communications with investors, have also generally succeeded in attracting disproportionate numbers of longer‐term shareholders. Myth Number 4: ESG data for fundamental analysis is scarce and unreliable. Reality: Thanks to the efforts of reporting and investor organizations such as SASB and Ceres, and of CDP data providers like Bloomberg and MSCI, much more “value‐relevant” ESG data on companies has become available in the past ten years. Myth Number 5: ESG adds value almost entirely by limiting risks. Reality: Along with lower risk and a lower cost of capital, companies with high ESG scores have also experienced increases in operating efficiency and expansions into new markets. Myth Number 6: Consideration of ESG factors might create a conflict with fiduciary duty for some investors. Reality: Many ESG factors have been shown to have positive correlations with corporate financial performance and value, prompting ERISA in 2015 to reverse its earlier instructions to pension funds about the legitimacy of taking account of “non‐financial” considerations when investing in companies.     

Why EVA Bonus Plans Failed—and How to Revive Them

Most companies rely heavily on earnings to measure their financial performance, but earnings growth has at least two important weaknesses as a proxy for investor wealth. Current earnings growth may come at the expense of future earnings through, say, shortsighted cutbacks in corporate investment, including R&D or advertising. But growth in earnings per share can also be achieved by “overinvesting”—that is, committing ever more capital to projects with expected rates of return that, although well below the cost of capital, exceed the after‐tax cost of debt. Stock compensation has been the conventional solution to the first problem because it's a discounted cash flow value that is assumed to discourage actions that sacrifice future earnings. Economic profit—in its most popular manifestation, EVA—has been the conventional solution to the second problem because it includes a capital charge that penalizes low‐return investment. But neither of these conventional solutions appears to work very well in practice. Stock compensation isn't tied to business unit performance, and often fails to motivate corporate managers who believe that meeting consensus earnings is more important than investing to maintain future earnings. EVA often doesn't work well because increases in current EVA often come with reduced expectations of future EVA improvement—and reductions in current EVA are often accompanied by increases in future growth values. Since EVA bonus plans reward current EVA increases without taking account of changes in expected future growth values, they have the potential to encourage margin improvement that comes at the expense of business growth and discourage positive‐NPV investments that, because of longer‐run payoffs, reduce current EVA. In this article, the author demonstrates the possibility of overcoming such short‐termism by developing an operating model of changes in future growth value that can be used to calibrate “dynamic” EVA improvement targets that more closely align EVA bonus plan payouts with investors’ excess returns. With the use of “dynamic” targets, margin improvements that come at the expense of business growth can be discouraged by raising EVA performance targets, while growth investments can be encouraged by the use of lower EVA targets.     

VALUE MAXIMIZATION AND STAKEHOLDER THEORY: COMPATIBLE OR NOT?

Complicating the current corporate governance controversy is a major disagreement about the fundamental purpose of the corporation. There are two main views on what should constitute the principal goal of the firm. Most economists tend to endorse value maximization—that is, maximization of the value of the firm's debt plus equity—or a version of value maximization known as “value‐based management” (VBM) that aims to maximize shareholder value. The main challenger is “stakeholder theory,” which argues that the corporation exists to benefit not just investors but all its major constituencies—employees, customers, suppliers, the local community, and the federal government, as well as shareholders. Thus, whereas the success of a corporation under VBM could be assessed simply by its long‐run return to shareholders, under stakeholder theory a company's success would be judged by taking account of its contributions to all its stakeholders. Using statistical analysis of various measures of corporate success in satisfying non‐investor stakeholders, the author investigates whether a broader focus on multiple stakeholders is necessarily inconsistent with the pursuit of long‐term shareholder value. His main findings in fact suggest just the opposite—namely, that long‐term value creation appears to be a necessary condition for maintaining corporate investment in stakeholder relationships. More specifically, the author's study shows that companies with higher levels of value creation tend to have stronger reputations for treating stakeholders well while companies that create little value end up shortchanging not just their shareholders but all their constituencies. For profitable companies that have previously failed to devote the optimal level of resources to their non‐investor stakeholders, the message of this article is that investing in stakeholders can add value—and, in fact, it pays for companies to spend an additional dollar on stakeholder relationships as long as the present value of the expected (long‐run) return is at least a dollar.     

Using the Return on Sustainability Investment (ROSI) Framework to Value Accelerated Decarbonization

A major barrier to companies' more effective integration of sustainability into their corporate strategies is finding ways to estimate and communicate the full value of their business cases. In the authors' experience in working with or for companies, they find that most do not track the value sustainability delivers for an organization. And when companies do track and measure their returns on investments in sustainability, the estimates tend to be focused almost exclusively on those benefits that are most direct and tangible, and show up on the corporate P&L, as opposed to other benefits like employee commitment and regulatory forbearance, which are more likely to show up in a lower cost of capital. To help companies quantify the expected value of their sustainability programs, the authors have developed a Return on Sustainability Investment (ROSI?) framework. The study presented here describes the outcomes of a recent analysis in which the NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business in collaboration with ALO Advisors worked with Capital Power Corporation, a North American power producer, to estimate the value likely to be created by accelerating its transition to clean energy. Through their work with the Chief Sustainability Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and senior managers from several key business functions, the authors identified seven major sources of benefits, and quantified the expected effects on value of four of them, to produce an estimated contribution to the value of the company of about $30 million. The ROSI? framework and methodology has since been incorporated into CPX's investment decision‐making process, and played an important role in management's decision to commit to the operating changes required to accelerate the company's transition away from coal‐generated electricity.     

Innovation in Stock Exchanges: Driving ESG Disclosure and Performance

Stock exchanges are in a unique position to promote ESG transparency and leverage their institutional capacity to build more sustainable capital markets. To facilitate the quick uptake of material ESG disclosure and raise the quality and comparability of the data, the Athens Stock Exchange has created ESG guidelines for listed companies that will be published in the summer of 2019. One important feature of the guidelines is their degree of sectoral specificity and emphasis on materiality. The guidelines and supporting metrics they propose are based on reporting practices endorsed by international sustainability standards like the SASB's industry standards. This materiality‐oriented approach will help issuers focus on the sustainability value drivers inherent in their business, and so ensure that corporate ESG disclosures satisfy the demand of investors for comparable quantitative and accounting metrics that help companies communicate their commitment to long‐term value creation.     

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA ROUNDTABLE ON: Enterprise‐Wide Risk Management

For many years, MBA students were taught that there was no good reason for companies that hedge large currency or commodity price exposures to have lower costs of capital, or trade at higher P/E multiples, than comparable companies that choose not to hedge such financial price risks. Corporate stockholders, just by holding well‐diversified portfolios, were said to neutralize any effects of currency and commodity price risks on corporate values. And corporate efforts to manage such risks were accordingly viewed as redundant, a waste of corporate resources on a function already performed by investors at far lower cost. But as this discussion makes clear, both the theory and the corporate practice of risk management have moved well beyond this perfect markets framework. The academics and practitioners in this roundtable begin by suggesting that the most important reason to hedge financial risks—and risk management's largest potential contribution to firm value—is to ensure a company's ability to carry out its strategic plan and investment policy. As one widely cited example, Merck's use of FX options to hedge the currency risk associated with its overseas revenues is viewed as limiting management's temptation to cut R&D in response to large currency‐related shortfalls in reported earnings. Nevertheless, one of the clear messages of the roundtable is that effective risk management has little to do with earnings management per se, and that companies that view risk management as primarily a tool for smoothing reported earnings have lost sight of its real economic function: maintaining access to low‐cost capital to fund long‐run investment. And a number of the panelists pointed out that a well‐executed risk management policy can be used to increase corporate debt capacity and, in so doing, reduce the cost of capital. Moreover, in making decisions whether to retain or transfer risks, companies should generally be guided by the principle of comparative advantage. If an outside firm or investor is willing to bear a particular risk at a lower price than the cost to the firm of managing that risk internally, then it makes sense to lay off that risk. Along with the greater efficiency and return on capital promised by such an approach, several panelists also pointed to one less tangible benefit of an enterprise‐wide risk management program—a significant improvement in the internal corporate dialogue, leading to a better understanding of all the company's risks and how they are affected by the interactions among its business units.     

Roundtable on Corporate Disclosure

In an article published in this journal two years ago titled "Just Say No to Wall Street," Harvard's Michael Jensen and The Monitor Group's CEO Joseph Fuller urged companies to put an end to what they called the "earnings guidance game." Instead of earnings forecasts, Jensen and Fuller recommended that companies provide investors with information about their strategic goals and value drivers, and about the risks associated with carrying out those goals and management's plans to manage those risks.
In this roundtable, a group of corporate executives, equity analysts, and academics explore the possibility that companies can increase their values by resisting the temptation to "manage" earnings, committing to expanded disclosure, and engaging investors in a more strategic dialogue. By establishing such a dialogue, companies may be able to break out of the current "bad equilibrium" in which markets distrust managers and managers distrust markets.     

Measuring What Matters: Industry Specificity Helps Companies and Investors Gain Traction on Sustainability

Financial analysts interpret the performance of companies and their securities through an industry lens. Just as an industry approach is critical in financial analysis, it's also critical in helping investors evaluate sustainability performance, since sustainability issues differ from one industry to the next—in large because of differences in how companies use natural and other social resources when bringing their goods and services to market, and how they impact society and the environment in the process. The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) was created in 2012 to deliver a full set of sustainability accounting standards that can be used to guide industry‐specific corporate sustainability disclosure to the capital markets. SASB has now issued provisional standards for 79 industries, thereby enabling companies and investors for the first time to identify patterns of sustainability risks and opportunities both across and within industries. Although high‐level issues such as climate change, product safety, and resource intensity and scarcity have material impacts across a variety of sectors, those impacts often vary greatly from one industry to the next. Thus, although the risk may be ubiquitous, it is also differentiated to the point that each industry has its own distinct sustainability profile. Understanding these unique profiles can help companies better manage the issues that are most likely to present material risks to their industries.     

ESG Investing in Graham & Doddsville

The author describes how and why the world's best “business value investors” have long incorporated environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations into their investment decision‐making. As the main source of value in companies has increasingly shifted from tangible to intangible assets, many followers of Graham & Dodd have delivered exceptional investment results by taking an “earnings‐power” approach to identifying high‐quality businesses—businesses with enduring competitive advantages that are sustained through significant ongoing investment in their core capabilities and, increasingly, their important non‐investor “stakeholders.” While the ESG framework may be relatively new, it can be thought of as providing a lens through which to view the age‐old issue of “quality.” Graham & Dodd's 1934 classic guide to investing, Security Analysis, and Phil Fisher's 1958 bestseller, Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits, both identify a number of areas of analysis that would today be characterized as ESG. Regardless of whether they use the labels “E,” “S,” and “G,” investors who make judgments about earnings power and sustainable competitive advantage are routinely incorporating ESG considerations into their decision‐making. The challenge of assessing a company's sustainable competitive advantage requires analysis based on concepts such as customer franchise value, as well as intangibles like brands and intellectual property. For corporate managers communicating ESG priorities, and for investors analyzing ESG issues, the key is to focus on their relevance to the business. In this sense, corporate reporting on sustainability issues should be viewed as analogous to and an integral part of financial reporting, with a management focus on materiality and relevance (while avoiding a “promotional” approach) that is critical to credibility.     

Embedding Sustainability Performance and Long‐Term Strategy in the Earnings Call

The practice of disclosing corporate Environmental, Social and Governance performance information continues to evolve, and the frequency of ESG disclosures in investor‐facing discussions, including Investor Day presentations and non‐deal roadshows, continues to grow. But even with these developments, the corporate‐investor dialogue about ESG and long‐term strategy, and their expected effects on long‐run profitability and value, has continued to lag. This seems particularly evident in the quarterly earnings call. In this article, the authors review the work of NYU's Center for Sustainable Business, in collaboration with Chief Executives for Corporate Purpose (CECP), in encouraging companies to work ESG themes and performance into their quarterly earnings calls. After discussing the reasons for the relatively slow progress in this important disclosure venue, including interviews with sell‐side analysts, the authors propose practical approaches that can guide companies, regardless of industry or market cap, in delivering this content in a way that is valuable to both buy‐side and sell‐side equity analysts.