Analysts' Roundtable on Integrating ESG into Investment Decision‐Making

In this third of the three discussions that took place at the SASB 2016 Symposium, practitioners of a broad range of investment approaches—active as well as passive in both equities and fixed‐income—explain how and why they use ESG information when evaluating companies and making their investment decisions. There was general agreement that successful ESG investing depends on integrating ESG factors with the methods and data of traditional “fundamental” financial statement analysis. And in support of this claim, a number of the panelists noted that some of the world's best “business value investors,” including Warren Buffett, have long incorporated environmental, social, and governance considerations into their investment decision‐making. In the analysis of such active fundamental investors, ESG concerns tend to show up as risk factors that can translate into higher costs of capital and lower values. And companies' effectiveness in managing such factors, as ref lected in high ESG scores and rankings, is viewed by many fundamental investors as an indicator of management “quality,” a reliable demonstration of the corporate commitment to investing in the company's future. Moreover, some fixed‐income investors are equally if not more concerned than equity investors about ESG exposures. ESG factors can have pronounced effects on performance by generating “tail risks” that can materialize in both going‐concern and default scenarios. And the rating agencies have long attempted to reflect some of these risks in their analysis, though with mixed success. What is relatively new, however, is the frequency with which fixed income investors are engaging companies on ESG topics. And even large institutional investors with heavily indexed portfolios have become more aggressive in engaging their portfolio companies on ESG issues. Although the traditional ESG filters used by such investors were designed mainly just to screen out tobacco, firearms, and other “sin” shares from equity portfolios, investors' interest in “tilting” their portfolios toward positive sustainability factors, in the form of lowcarbon and gender‐balanced ETFs and other kinds of “smart beta” portfolios, has gained considerable momentum.     

The Next Wave of ESG Integration: Lessons from Institutional Investors

In this panel that also took place at the recent SASB Symposium, senior representatives of four leading institutional investors—BlackRock, Ca lPERS, Ca lSTRS, and Wells Fargo—emphasize the relevance of ESG data for “mainstream” investors and the importance of integrating it with traditional fundamental analysis rather than viewing it as a separate set of reporting responsibilities. Moreover, the logical place for integrating ESG information is in the most forwardlooking section of financial reports, the “Management Discussion and Analysis,” or “MD&A,” which would be strengthened by including more and better information about the companies' ESG risks and initiatives. Some panelists noted that ESG information is likely to be valued by investors because of its ability to shed light on “idiosyncratic” risks that are not captured by the traditional risk factors that have long dominated asset pricing models. Others described ESG information as helpful in evaluating and comparing the “quality” of management in portfolio companies. But all agreed that efforts like the SASB's to standardize ESG data are essential to successful integration of that data into the decision‐making process of large mainstream investors. And as the panelists also made clear, there is an important generational component to the growing movement to integrate ESG into mainstream investing, with Millenials—and particularly Millenial women—showing especially strong support.     

When ESG talks: ESG tone of 10-K reports and its significance to stock markets

Since the ESG topic consistently gains on importance in the investment universe, companies provide investors with information regarding recent and future ESG activities through different reporting channels. The most recent research finds relevance of ESG-related corporate activities for formation of investors' opinion regarding companies' valuations and growth prospects. Based on a sample of more than seventeen thousand unique 10-K reports of US companies filed with SEC in period 2013 to 2019 and the word-power methodology proposed by Jegadeesh and Wu (2013), this study also shows evidence for significant relation of ESG textual tone of 10-K reports to stock market returns of filing companies around the report filing dates. Using the ESG linguistic dictionary recently proposed by Baier, Berninger, and Kiesel (2020), this study shows evidence for significant relation of social and governance-related topics disclosure to stock returns, while environmental narratives being ignored by the markets. When looking at individual words from the ESG lexicon, such words as “community”, “health”, “control” imply positive reaction of markets, while “discrimination”, “embezzlement”, and “crime” are related to negative returns. The robustness analysis based on the inverse document frequency word weightings and actual ESG performance scores confirms the significance of ESG information disclosure of 10-K reports for investors. Thus, this study sheds light on the mechanics of ESG information perception and its influence on capital markets.     

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Sustainability Disclosure: Findings from a Recent SASB Study

Early research into the relationship between corporate sustainability programs and financial performance suggests a positive relationship between strong sustainability performance and a lower cost of capital. As investors increasingly incorporate sustainability information into financial decisionmaking, the importance of high‐quality sustainability disclosure is growing. Just as investors have relied on financial disclosures based on generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) to assess corporate risk, a market standard is needed to help companies disclose comparable sustainability information. To address this issue, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) conducted a recent analysis of the current state of sustainability disclosure in annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. The study reviewed the disclosures of over 700 U.S.‐and foreign‐domiciled companies, focusing on material sustainability topics as identified by SASB's industry‐specific accounting standards. The authors find large variations among different corporate sectors in the frequency and quality, as well as the focus, of their sustainability disclosures. Then, after examining in detail disclosures within the SASB Resource Transformation and Consumer Staples sectors, the authors suggest a number of possible drivers of this variation, including key sustainability and economic trends, while also presenting evidence of increasing investor interest in sustainability information. Although the authors' analysis was not intended to determine the extent to which the quality of sustainability disclosure affects investor returns, the findings provide a useful baseline for the as yet largely unexplored relationship between sustainability disclosure and corporate financial performance.     

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.     

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.     

Clawback policy enforcement: To disclose or not to disclose

The SEC proposed in 2015 to require the disclosure of incentive compensation recovery efforts by companies' boards of directors. While such disclosure of enforcement can signal the effectiveness of corporate governance as the SEC suggested, firms have argued that the proposed enforcement disclosure may harm executives' reputation regardless of their involvement in misstatement because the clawback includes a no-fault clause. Results of our experimental study suggest that when the board does not disclose its clawback enforcement, investors perceive weak corporate governance, particularly when a restatement results from an intentional misstatement. This, in turn, leads investors to be less willing to invest than when clawback enforcement is disclosed. We also find that investors' perception of management reputation is not negatively affected following the board's clawback enforcement disclosure. Overall, our study provides insights into the potential effect of the SEC's proposal requiring the disclosure of clawback enforcement and addresses concerns raised in comment letters.     

A Tale of Two Stories: Sustainability and the Quarterly Earnings Call

One of the challenges companies claim to face in making sustainability a core part of their strategy and operations is that the market does not care about sustainability, either in general or because the time frames in which it matters are too long. The response of investors who say they care about sustainability—and their numbers are large and growing—is that companies do a poor job in providing them with the information they need to take sustainability into account in their investment decisions. Whatever the merits of each view, the fact remains that an effective conversation about sustainability requires the participation of both sides of the market. There are two main mechanisms for companies to communicate to the market as a way of starting this conversation: mandated reporting and quarterly conference calls. In this paper, the authors argue that neither companies nor investors can be seen as taking sustainability seriously unless it is integrated into the quarterly earnings call. Until that happens, the core business and sustainability are two separate worlds, each of which has its own narrator telling a different story to a different audience. The authors illustrate their argument using the case of SAP, the German software company. SAP was the first company to host an “ESG Investor Briefing,” a conference call for analysts and investors held on July 30, 2013 in which the company discussed both its sustainability performance and its contribution to the firm's financial performance. The narrative of this call was very similar to the narrative of the company's first “integrated report,” which was issued in 2012 and presented the company's sustainability initiatives in the context of its operating and financial performance. Nevertheless, the content and main focus of the “ESG Briefing” were very different from that of most quarterly earnings conferences, and so were the audiences. Whereas the quarterly call was attended mainly by sell side analysts—and the words “sustainability” or “sustainable” failed to receive a single mention—the ESG briefing was delivered to an investor audience made up almost entirely of the “buy side.”     

ESG disclosure and financial performance: Moderating role of ESG investors

This study discusses the effect of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure on corporate financial performance. This study uses a sample of non-financial listed companies from 2000 to 2020 and applies the staggered difference-in-differences technique to eliminate the endogeneity problem. Findings show that ESG disclosure has a favorable effect on corporate financial performance. This conclusion remains robust after a series of robustness tests, including the parallel trend test, Goodman-Bacon decomposition, replacement of dependent variables, system GMM estimate, the placebo test, etc. ESG disclosure has heterogeneous effects on financial performance. The positive effect of ESG disclosure on corporate financial performance is more pronounced in companies with ESG investors and companies with longer inception, high media attention, and high agency costs. In addition, investors with ESG preferences exert a substantial moderating effect on the link between ESG disclosure and financial performance connection. We arrive at two conclusions in the extended analysis. One is that ESG disclosure attracts ESG investors. Another is that ESG investors also play a positive moderating role in the connection between ESG ratings and financial performance.     

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.     

Information Asymmetry and Voluntary SFAS 157 Fair Value Disclosures by Bank Holding Companies During the 2007 Financial Crisis

We hand‐collect SFAS 157 voluntary fair value disclosures of 18 bank holding companies. The SEC's Division of Corporate Finance likely targeted these entities in 2008 through their “Dear CFO” letters in which they requested specific, additional disclosure items. We collect disclosures that match the SEC recommendations and create eight common factor disclosure variables to examine the effect of such disclosures on information asymmetry. We find that disclosure variables about the use of broker quotes or prices from pricing services and the use of market indices and illiquidity adjustments are related to lower information asymmetry. However, disclosure variables about valuation techniques and asset‐backed securities are related to greater information asymmetry. We also document that disclosure complexity, and disclosure tone (uncertainty and litigious) is related to greater information asymmetry. These findings are consistent with criticism that corporate disclosures are voluminous; management may obfuscate unfavorable information which in turn increases market participants’ assessment of uncertainty associated with the fair value measures. We caveat that the setting of the financial crisis and a small sample size may limit the ability to generalize these inferences to other time periods or other financial firms.     

“Non‐Financial” Is a Misnomer,but Doesn't Have to Be a Missed Opportunity

With enterprise values now representing increasing multiples of companies' net book assets, investors are clearly looking beyond financial reporting for enhanced insights and understanding of when and how companies are adding value. This shift includes growing attention to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) information. Although ESG data presents its own unique challenges, dismissing it as “non‐financial” can be misleading. When explicitly linked to a company's long‐term value creation strategy, ESG information can serve as a valuable input to more farsighted financial analysis. Market‐driven initiatives, notably that of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), aim to standardize a subset of business‐critical, industry‐specific sustainability data for investors. Research indicates such approaches can generate positive outcomes not only for providers of financial capital, but for their portfolio companies and markets in general. In illustrating these concepts, the authors explore ESG impacts in three sectors and industries, while examining how access to consistent, comparable, reliable sustainability information in those sectors can augment an analysis of traditional business fundamentals. One example focuses on water management in the Oil & Gas Exploration & Production industry, a major environmental issue where geographic considerations can shed light on company‐specific exposures to cost increases, production disruptions, increased CapEx and R&D spending, as well as the potential for asset write‐downs. In the Food & Beverage sector, health and nutrition concerns are shown to be changing consumer preferences, triggering regulatory action, and reshaping companies' product portfolios—with significant implications for the companies' brand values and ability to compete for market share. Finally, in Aerospace & Defense, lapses in business ethics such as bribery of government officials present a governance challenge that comes with the risk of value‐destroying fines and penalties and, even more significant, associated reductions in revenues.     

New Corporate Forms: One Viable Solution to Advancing Environmental Sustainability

There is a clear trend in corporate governance toward increased attention to the environmental and social impacts of business operations. Major consulting firms are advising Fortune 500 companies on how to become more environmentally sustainable, private equity and “impact” investors are measuring environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors, and voluntary reporting and shareholder resolutions on issues of environmental sustainability are on the rise. While traditional corporate forms allow companies to embrace social and environmental responsibility with some measure of success, various real and perceived risks encourage directors to focus on short‐term profitability. Even if a company has a strong social mission at inception, founders often have difficulty “anchoring their mission” over time. And the lack of required disclosure of social and environmental performance makes it more difficult for investors to evaluate and compare companies. Many believe that the institutionalized mispricing of natural resources and the continued failure to price externalities, combined with the progressive nature of climate change, require the transformation of both business and law. This article discusses social and environmental sustainability within the traditional corporate form and then explores three emerging alternatives that are now being used by businesses in California: limited liability corporations (LLCs); benefit corporations (B corps); and flexible purpose corporations (FPCs). Of these three alternatives, FPCs—a corporate form that requires shareholders to agree on one or more social missions with management and the board—may be best suited to meet the needs of the many small private firms (as well as some large public companies) that, whether for purely economic or altruistic reasons, plan to integrate ESG into their operations.     

Corporate Disclosure of Material Information: The Evolution—and the Need to Evolve Again

This article by the former chairman of the FASB and the founder and executive director of the new Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) presents the rationale for and mission of the SASB. As the authors point out, both the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was created in 1934, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board, set up in 1973, emerged during times of low investor confidence to restore trust in the capital markets. And the institutional changes brought about by the creation of both the SEC and the FASB succeeded in eliciting new information for investors and in raising the standards by which such information was reported. But as the authors go on to argue, we now live in a different world, one in which the management of environmental, social, and governance issues is increasingly viewed as critical to the long‐run value creation of companies. And because today's corporate reporting fails to account in a systematic way for material non‐financial issues, it's time once again for the capital markets to evolve. The SASB aims to meet this need by creating sustainability accounting standards for use by public companies in disclosing a minimum set of material sustainability impacts for companies in over 80 different industries. As part of a natural evolution in disclosure, the SASB aims to achieve the same goal the SEC and FASB started with: to protect investors and the public.     

Business sustainability factors and stock price informativeness

This paper investigates whether and how business sustainability performance and disclosure factors affect stock price informativeness (SPI). We find that non-financial environmental, social, and governance (ESG) sustainability performance factors are positively associated with idiosyncratic volatility (our proxy for SPI) after controlling for financial-economic performance. We further show that the association between sustainability performance factors and SPI is stronger for firms with higher sustainability disclosure. We find that the association between ESG sustainability performance factors and SPI is stronger when economic performance is weaker, suggesting that investors tend to pay more attention to ESG performance factors when firms are financially underperforming. This study shows that investors pay attention to both firm economic performance (corporate profitability and growth prospect) and ESG sustainability performance and disclosure factors, which have implications for policymakers, regulators, investors, businesses, and researchers.     

Comparative analysis of environmental,social, and governance disclosures

We examine the level of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) sustainability disclosure by firms between two regimes where disclosure is mandatory versus voluntary. We use the regulatory environment between the United States (US) and European Union (EU) to compare ESG disclosures. Firms in the US are currently under a voluntary disclosure regime. In contrast, EU members are under a mandatory disclosure regulatory regime that began in 2017. We find that EU firms outperform US firms under voluntary disclosure requirements (2007–2016), and the ESG disclosure of EU firms further improves relative to US firms after the implementation of the mandatory disclosure in Europe in 2017. Our results suggest that the 2017 adoption of disclosure guidelines in the EU is associated with improvements in EU firms' ESG disclosure. Our results regarding the value-relevance of ESG disclosure support a move toward mandatory ESG disclosures. Results support current initiatives that have been taken by global regulators and stock exchanges in recommending and requiring globally listed companies to disclose their ESG sustainability information to portray accurate and comprehensive corporate reporting. The results further our understanding of how firms from different institutional environment settings may have disclosed their ESG practices, thus providing opportunities for future research.     

ESG for All? The Impact of ESG Screening on Return,Risk, and Diversification

A large body of research has documented a positive relationship between different measures of sustainability—such as indicators of employee satisfaction and effective corporate governance—and corporate financial performance. Nevertheless, many investors still struggle to quantify the value of ESG to investment performance. To address this issue, the authors tested the effects of using different ESG filters on an investable universe that serves as the starting point for a fund manager. In this way, they attempted to determine the extent to which ESG data can add value to any investment approach, regardless of preferences towards sustainable investing. The authors report “an unequivocally positive” contribution to risk‐adjusted returns when using a 10% best‐in‐class ESG screening approach (one that effectively removes companies with the lowest 10% of ESG rankings), both on a global and a developed markets universe. More specifically, as a result of such screening, both the global and developed markets portfolios show higher returns, lower (tail) risk, and no significant reduction of diversification potential despite the reduction in the number of companies. Use of a 25% screening filter was also found to add value, especially by reducing tail risks, but with a larger deviation from the unscreened universe. Overall, then, the authors’ finding is that the incorporation of ESG information contributes to better decision‐making in every investment approach, with the optimal configuration depending on a fund manager's preferences and willingness to deviate from an unscreened benchmark.     

Market Interest in Nonfinancial Information

During the past two decades, more and more companies have volunteered to provide “corporate social responsibility” or “sustainability” reports that include information about their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies and performance. Such reporting has come about largely in response to demands by a wide range of stakeholders for information about how the company's operations are affecting society in a number of different ways. But do investors really care about companies' ESG performance and policies? Using data from Bloomberg, the authors provide the first broadly based empirical evidence of investors' interest in ESG data. More specifically, the authors show how interest in the top 20 ESG metrics varies with geographical location (European vs. American), asset class (fixed income vs. equity), and firm type. At the aggregate market level, there is greater interest in environmental and governance information than in “social” information. U.S. investors are more interested than their European counterparts in governance and less interested in environmental information. Equity investors are interested in a wider range of nonfinancial information than are fixed income investors. And whereas sell‐side analysts are primarily interested in greenhouse gas emissions, money managers tend to focus on a broader set of metrics. Similarly, pension funds and hedge funds have shown interest in more nonfinancial metrics than insurance companies. The authors' bottom line: Companies need to recognize the growing market interest in nonfinancial information and ensure that they are providing it according to the specific information needs of market users.