Preserving Value through Adaptation to Climate Change

Corporate “mitigation” efforts to limit greenhouse gases alone will not be sufficient to protect companies against future environmental impacts. For most companies intent on preserving their operating efficiency and value, “adaptation”—the process of changing behavior in response to actual or expected climate change impacts—is emerging as a critical partner to mitigation efforts aimed at reducing the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The recent growth in the expected costs associated with the risk of climate change emphasizes the importance of developing new technology and redesigning infrastructure and other assets that will enable companies to respond to such change without excessive reductions in profitability. The nature and extent of adaptation in each situation will depend on the costs involved relative to the benefits of adopting different adaptation strategies to achieve a target level of resilience. Companies that choose to adapt and do so effectively are expected to benefit from an improvement in their net risk‐return profile. Consistent with this expectation, the authors found that a sample of companies from the European energy sector that adapted to the 2005 EU climate change mandate by diversifying their fuel sources (mainly away from coal) experienced reductions in both risk and return while non‐adapting firms experienced roughly the same returns, but at the cost of higher risk. The benefit of adapting is thus seen as showing up not in higher returns per se, but in higher risk‐adjusted returns.     

Climate Change and Asset Prices: Are Corporate Carbon Disclosure and Performance Priced Appropriately?

This paper empirically assesses the relevance of information on corporate climate change disclosure and performance to asset prices, and discusses whether this information is priced appropriately. Findings indicate that corporate disclosures of quantitative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and, to a lesser extent, carbon performance are value relevant. We use hand‐collected information on quantitative GHG emissions for 433 European companies and build portfolios based on GHG disclosure and performance. We regress portfolios on a standard four factor model extended for industry effects over the years 2005 to 2009. Results show that investors achieved abnormal risk‐adjusted returns of up to 13.05% annually by exploiting inefficiently priced positive effects of (complete) GHG emissions disclosure and good corporate climate change performance in terms of GHG efficiency. Results imply that, firstly, information costs involved in carbon disclosure and management do not present a burden on corporate financial resources. Secondly, investors should not neglect carbon disclosure and performance when making investment decisions. Thirdly, during the period analysed, financial markets were inefficient in pricing publicly available information on carbon disclosure and performance. Mandatory and standardised information on carbon performance would consequently not only increase market efficiency but result in better allocation of capital within the real economy.     

Climate change reporting and multinational companies: Insights from institutional theory and international business

Multinational companies (MNCs) have an important impact on climate change, but knowledge on the greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting practices of MNCs is limited. A theoretical framework is developed to provide an explanation of GHG emissions reporting by MNCs. The framework combines institutional theory with the notion of MNC typology from International Business and explains how institutional pressure acting on each typology of MNC influences standardization of reporting practices and GHG emissions data quality. Propositions are developed and empirically investigated using a case study. Global MNCs are predicted to have better quality GHG emissions reporting compared to multi-domestic or transnational MNCs.     

Climate Change Scenario Analysis for Public Market Investors

Academic studies suggest that market participants are demanding higher risk premiums for carbon‐intensive assets, but that natural disasters have yet to be efficiently priced into the market. And as a consequence, asset owners and investors are less than fully informed about the evidence of climate change uncovered by the scientific community. The author assesses the exposure to climate risk of Rockefeller Capital's ‘Ocean Strategy,” an actively managed global equity portfolio, by using three publicaly available climate change scenario analysis tools: (1) Paris Agreement Capital Transition Assessment (PACTA); The Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI), and (3) Carbon Tracker's 2 Degrees of Separation.     

How Does Sustainability Disclosure Drive Behavior Change?

In 2011, as part of the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), over 3,700 companies disclosed information about their energy use, emissions, risks, opportunities, and strategy to their institutional investors and customers. In this article, the Chief Innovation Officer of CDP discusses five ways that such disclosure is expected to lead to changes in corporate behavior. The first two are “internal” mechanisms that tend to encourage constructive change more or less directly as a result of going through the process of disclosure. One is known as “WGMGM,” which is shorthand for the often‐cited principle that “what gets measured gets managed.” The second is the tendency of disclosure to bring about valuable changes in strategic thinking. The next two are mechanisms that work to effect change through “external” channels. One relies on the use of data to enable investors, regulators, and other corporate stakeholders to draw comparisons among companies and industries in assessing the value implications of climate change disclosure. The second involves competitor benchmarking and the growing use of data in investment research. Fifth and last, recent evidence suggests that a growing number of investors are willing to raise the bar in terms of the expectations they place on companies to act responsibly now in the face of current and expected future changes. Each of these five change processes are discussed while citing evidence drawn from CDP's long experience of managing the disclosure process and working with both investors and companies to convert data into action.     

Sustainability as Adaptability

Most corporations now view sustainability as a key requirement for competitive advantage, but few claim to have achieved it. One of the key obstacles separating intention from execution is that the sustainability frameworks employed by companies tend to be insufficiently clear, precise, or comprehensive to guide decision making. One of the most pressing challenges for corporate leaders today is, of course, to sustain the economic viability of the core businesses. But given the implicit “beyond business” focus of most sustainability efforts, corporate executives would be better served by a more integrated, holistic framework—one that enables them to make tradeoffs among the economic, social, and ecological aspects of business. This article introduces such a framework—one that redefines sustainability as the ability of companies to adapt to change in three different spheres of operation—ecological, social, and economic—with a near‐term as well as a longer‐term planning horizon. Without such adaptation, business models become obsolete for reasons that can range from economic failure, to competitive inferiority, to social or ecological limits. This ability to adapt can be measured and valued by using the BCG Adaptive Advantage Index, a composite measure of corporate performance during market downturns. The BCG analysis also shows that although the most adaptive companies tend to report lower profits and have lower values during periods of relative stability, such companies perform consistently better over full cycles. Creating social and ecological value alone doesn't automatically confer economic rewards, but—with the right business model and capabilities—it can. The authors explore some of the business model archetypes that successfully achieve this “co‐optimization.”     

Delivering green economy in Asia: The role of fiscal instruments

Asia’s ongoing rapid economic growth is successfully lifting millions of poor out of the vicious cycle of poverty, but that performance comes at a price. The unprecedented growth we witness today is also rapidly driving resource consumption to unsustainable levels. Local production and consumption-led growth is causing a considerable increase in external costs, such as deforestation, and knock-on effects, such as increased emissions including greenhouse gas (GHG); depletion of non-renewable resources; pollution of rivers; desertification; flooding; and long term climate change. Currently, the region accounts for about 40% of GHG emissions, which is expected to rise to almost 50% by 2030 if the business-as-usual trajectory projected for the region is not altered. Countries in the region are taking action when it comes to the transition to a green economy. When compared to other regions, Asia has the highest rate of policy innovations that can help in the transition to a green economy. Even though fiscal instruments in-use are to some extent already altering aggregate demand of resources and economic activities, resource allocation, and distributive capacity of the economy, instrument such as “carbon tax” that has the real potential to contain rising emissions and save economies from getting locked into carbon-intensive pathways are yet to be adopted widely. Tax on natural resources extraction is yet to be implemented in wider scale despite of rampant destruction of natural resources and environments and increase in associated GHG emissions. Sporadic adoption of fiscal instruments is not going to be enough, if Asia as a region, is to transition to a green economy. In addition, there are substantial implementation barriers that need to be eased for wide-scale adoption and diffusion of green fiscal instruments.     

The SEC and Improving Sustainability Reporting

In this discussion that took place at the SASB 2016 Symposium, the former Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission explores recent developments in corporate sustainability reporting with three Directors—two past and one current—of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance (or “CorpFin”). The consensus of the panelists was that investors want companies to provide more and better disclosure of their ESG exposures, particularly climate change, and their plans to manage those exposures. According to the current director of CorpFin, the most common demand expressed in the thousands of “comment letters” elicited by the SEC's recent concept release was for more and better sustainability information. And among the many issues cited by investors in those letters, including economic inequality, corruption, indigenous rights, and community relations, the subject of greatest interest by far was climate change. While none of the panelists claimed to see private‐sector demand for SEC action and a new set of mandatory requirements, all seemed to agree that many companies would welcome the establishment of voluntary guidelines and standards for providing ESG information—and that the guidelines recently developed by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board are a promising model. For companies in each of 79 different industries, the SASB has identified a specific set of “material” concerns along with metrics or KPIs that can be used to evaluate corporate performance in responding to those concerns. Perhaps the most important advantage of this approach is that, by limiting such reporting to material exposures (and so adhering to a principle that has long informed SEC requirements), the SASB guidelines should significantly increase the relevance and value to investors—while possibly holding down the costs—of the sustainability reports that large companies in the U.S. and abroad have been producing for decades. But, as the former SEC Chair also notes in closing, the adoption of such guidelines by companies should be viewed as just a first step toward improving disclosure. To help companies develop the most useful and cost‐effective disclosure practices, investors themselves will have to become more active in communicating their own demands and preferences for information.     

全球金融危机对全球应对气候变化进程的影响

美国次贷危机进一步加深,并推动全球经济衰退。本文分析了该危机对全球应对气候变化进程造成的影响,随后对基于排放交易体系和碳市场对未来全球应对气候变化进行了展望,最后,提出了我国的思考,主要是:正确认识金融危机的短期性与应对气候变化的长期性;正确认识金融危机对我国应对气候变化进程带来的挑战与机遇;迅速抓住机遇,有步骤推进我国低碳经济转型;探索适合我国特色的低碳经济促进型的金融体系。     

Halo effect or fallen angel effect? Firm value consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and reputation for corporate social responsibility

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are perceived to have negative consequences for society at large by contributing to potential climate change and represent a potential cash drain from firms from exposure to future regulatory, abatement, and compliance costs. Beginning in 2010, US companies are required to report their GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We utilize these data for 2010–2014 to examine whether the possible adverse firm value impact of these GHG emissions is alleviated or exacerbated by the firm’s reputation for corporate social responsibility. Our findings suggest that there is no halo effect, i.e., a firm’s reputation for social responsibility (as reflected in its CSR score) does not protect the firm from the adverse firm value effects of GHG emissions. Rather, our findings suggest a fallen angel effect, i.e., for any given level of GHG emissions, the higher the firm’s CSR score, the greater the adverse impact on firm value. In other words, the decline in firm value due to the adverse impact of GHG emissions is compounded by the hit to the firm’s reputation for corporate social performance. Our paper contributes to the sparse prior US literature on the firm value effects of GHG emissions. Further, by providing scholarly evidence on the existence of a fallen angel effect, our findings suggest that boards and managers of firms that provide voluntary CSR disclosures cannot afford to be complacent about their GHG emissions.     

气候变化冲击下的涉农信用风险——基于2010-2019年256家农村金融机构的实证研究

气候变化可能导致的经济金融风险已经成为学术界关注的热点问题。本文首先分析了气候变化引发涉农金融风险的传导机制,以2010-2019年256家农村金融机构的经营数据为样本,将标准化后的年均气温作为刻画气候变化程度的核心指标,评估农村金融机构所在县域地理单元的气候变化程度对其信用风险的影响。研究发现,年均气温波动对农村金融机构的信用风险水平存在显著影响,且影响呈现阶段性特征;在4个季度中,冬季气温的波动对信用风险的影响最为突出;虽然城商行与农商行、村镇银行均是立足于服务地方经济发展的商业银行,但由于城商行的业务在地域上和行业上更为分散,气候变化未对其信用风险水平产生显著影响。为此,提出了开展压力测试、实施差异化监管和创新风险缓释工具三个方面的对策建议。本文为管理由气候变化导致的涉农信用风险提供了政策启示和决策参考。     

Corporate Climate Change‐Related Governance Practices and Related Disclosures: Evidence from Australia

This paper investigates the climate change‐related corporate governance disclosure practices of five major Australian energy‐intensive companies over a 16‐year period. In doing so, a content analysis instrument is developed to identify disclosures made in relation to various policies and procedures the organisations have in place for addressing the issues associated with climate change. This instrument is applied to the respective companies’ annual reports and sustainability reports. An increasing trend is found in companies’ climate change‐related corporate governance disclosures over time; however, in many instances the disclosures provide limited insights into the climate change‐related risks and opportunities confronting the sample companies.     

Valuing Companies with Cash‐Flow@Risk

The classic DCF approach to capital budgeting—the one that MBA students in the world's top business schools have been taught for the last 30 years—begins with the assumption that the corporate investment decision is “independent of” the financing decision. That is, the value of a given investment opportunity should not be affected by how a company is financed, whether mainly with debt or with equity. A corollary of this capital structure “irrelevance” proposition says that a company's investment decision should also not be influenced by its risk management policy—by whether a company hedges its various price exposures or chooses to leave them unhedged. In this article, the authors—one of whom is the CFO of the French high‐tech firm Gemalto—propose a practical alternative to DCF that is based on a concept they call “cash‐flow@risk.” Implementation of the concept involves dividing expected future cash flow into two components: a low‐risk part, or “certainty equivalent,” and a high‐risk part. The two cash flow streams are discounted at different rates (corresponding to debt and equity) when estimating their value. The concept of cash‐flow@risk derives directly from, and is fully consistent with, the concept of economic capital that was developed by Robert Merton and Andre Perold in the early 1990s and that has become the basis of Value at Risk (or VaR) capital allocation systems now used at most financial institutions. But because the approach in this article focuses on the volatility of operating cash flows instead of asset values, the authors argue that an internal capital allocation system based on cash‐flow@risk is likely to be much more suitable than VaR for industrial companies.     

Climate transition risk and bank lending

We investigate whether and how banks in the global syndicated loan market adjusted the pricing and supply of credit to account for higher climate transition risk (CTR) in the years following the 2015 Paris Agreement. We measure CTR by considering the pollution levels of borrowers and the engagement of countries where borrowers are headquartered in addressing climate change issues. The evidence is mixed and points to nonlinear relations between lending variables and CO2 emissions. Policy events such as the Paris Agreement and government environmental awareness are significant climate risk drivers that, when combined, may amplify banks' perception of CTR.     

How We Invest

In this chapter from their new book, Climate of Hope: How Cities, Businesses, and Citizens Can Save the Planet, the founder of Bloomberg LP and former mayor of New York City collaborates with the former executive director of the Sierra Club in showing how the pursuit of profit by companies and their investors is playing an important role in the battle against global warming. Climate change is shown as posing a series of discrete, manageable challenges—such as accelerating the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy—that have spurred a search for solutions that promise to make our society healthier and stronger. National governments, the authors argue, are not the best places to create or carry out these solutions. Rather, it is the mayors, CEOs, entrepreneurs, activists, concerned citizens, and other local actors who have the strongest incentives as well as the power and means to win the battle against climate change—and in ways that have already begun to generate economic growth and improve public health. State governors and mayors of cities around the U.S., in red and blue states alike, have been responsible for much of this progress. Cities and states have negotiated contracts with local utilities to provide greater amounts of clean energy, and used combinations of public and private capital to fund rapid transit, waste‐water treatment, and other infrastructure programs. But an equally important if not larger role is now being played by business. Companies large and small, with the backing of a growing number of environmentally conscious but resolutely profit‐seeking investors, are finding ways to reduce waste and strengthen worker protection and morale throughout supply chains that are providing increasingly climatefriendly products and services. The authors' bottom line, then, is that preventing climate change will require more than goodwill and government regulation. It will take the profit motive, a force that that many environmentalists have long viewed with suspicion. While acknowledging the past efforts of socially responsible investment funds that have shown a willingness to sacrifice returns, the authors conclude that the enlightened self‐interest of value‐seeking investors may well prove more effective than the “beneficence” of social investors and philanthropists in producing investments of sufficient scale and practical efficacy to meet the challenges of global warming.     

Ties that bind in business ethics: Social contracts and why they matter

How should bankers respond to challenges about whether to separate stock analysis from the other financial functions of financial services companies, or whether to maintain relationships with socially discredited customers? We wrote a book recently, Ties That Bind (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1999), out of our conviction that answering many of these questions requires a new approach to business ethics, one that exposes the implicit understandings or “contracts” that bind industries, companies, and economic systems into communities. In this article we unpack the fundamental elements of our approach called Integrative Social Contracts Theory (ISCT) and demonstrate how the theory can be applied to a particular question currently asked in the financial services industry, namely, “How should accounting firms and banking institutions deal with the increasing criticism alleging that new forms of conflict of interest impair the objectivity of auditors and security analysts.”     

EQT: Private Equity with a Purpose

The primary factors driving the remarkable growth of private equity have been the industry's attractive and stable returns in combination with its active ownership model. Nevertheless, critics have been questioning whether the PE industry can maintain its historic returns, and challenging its fee and incentive structures as well as its notable lack of transparency and diversity. And the alleged systemic effects of the industry on social problems like income inequality and climate change have become large enough to create a perceived threat to PE's long‐term “license to operate.” In this article, the authors discuss the commitment of EQT, the publicly listed and Stockholm‐headquartered private markets firm (and eighth largest PE fundraiser in the world), to the “future‐proofing” of both its portfolio companies and the company itself. The company envisions itself as undertaking a “journey” toward sustainability and positive impact and, in so doing, furnishing a model that other PE firms might find useful in helping “future‐proof” the entire industry. As part of that commitment, EQT recently published a “Statement of Purpose” signed by its the board of directors that focuses a societal impact lens on its entire portfolio of companies and assets, reinforces its public commitments to diversity and other “clean and conscious” practices, and aims to leverage digital technologies to enhance financial returns and real‐world outcomes. Transparency and a mindset focused on achieving positive impact are the keys to PE's earning high and stable returns and to securing its long‐term license to operate.     

Climate Change Policy in Australia: Organisational Responses and Influences

This paper uses a case study approach to examine (a) the nature of organisational responses to climate change policy using the Kolk and Pinkse (2004, 2005) typology; and (b) key drivers for action on climate change. We find evidence consistent with the evolution of responses from setting emission targets (cautious planners, emergent planners) to process innovation and product development (internal explorers). The exception to such linear development is horizontal explorers, who explore competitive opportunities in markets outside their current business. Key drivers for action include managerial perceptions of business opportunities, product differentiation and an implicit regard for the environment. Major impediments include uncertainty about the detail of climate change policy and managerial perceptions of business risk. At present, the intended strategic trading behaviour of the case organisations is best described as muted. However, the national institutional environment of which a liberal market economy and a carbon service industry are key, appear conducive to the future acceptance and active adoption of emissions trading in Australia.     

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.     

How Board Oversight Can Drive Climate and Sustainability Performance

The authors present persuasive evidence that board leadership is essential for solving critical sustainability issues like climate change. As fiduciaries to investors and stewards of a company's performance and success, corporate directors have a critical role to play in providing oversight of material risks to corporate strategy and performance, especially those posed by climate change. Drawing upon a report by Ceres and KKS Advisors, the authors show that perhaps most important among best practices for companies intent on establishing effective board governance are the creation of formal board mandates for sustainability, the recruitment of directors with sustainability expertise, and the linking of executive pay to sustainability performance. The authors' study also provides compelling evidence that when companies put in place such governance features, their sustainability performance improves notably. The international banking group BNP Paribas and the electric utility Iberdrola are held up as illustrations of governance systems that are likely to be effective in helping companies respond to climate change.