normes de marché | Page 2

La SEC a publié récemment une nouvelle sur son site indiquant qu’elle chercher l’avis du public sur sa réglementation dans le domaine du changement climatique : « Public Input Welcomed on Climate Change Disclosures » (15 mars 2021). C’est le moment de vous exprimer !

La SEC bouge en ce domaine comme cet extrait du message de la SEC le résume bien : Since 2010, investor demand for, and company disclosure of information about, climate change risks, impacts, and opportunities has grown dramatically. Consequently, questions arise about whether climate change disclosures adequately inform investors about known material risks, uncertainties, impacts, and opportunities, and whether greater consistency could be achieved. In May 2020, the SEC Investor Advisory Committee approved recommendations urging the Commission to begin an effort to update reporting requirements for issuers to include material, decision-useful environmental, social, and governance, or ESG factors. In December 2020, the ESG Subcommittee of the SEC Asset Management Advisory Committee issued a preliminary recommendation that the Commission require the adoption of standards by which corporate issuers disclose material ESG risks.

Extrait :

Questions for Consideration

1. How can the Commission best regulate, monitor, review, and guide climate change disclosures in order to provide more consistent, comparable, and reliable information for investors while also providing greater clarity to registrants as to what is expected of them? Where and how should such disclosures be provided? Should any such disclosures be included in annual reports, other periodic filings, or otherwise be furnished?
2. What information related to climate risks can be quantified and measured?  How are markets currently using quantified information? Are there specific metrics on which all registrants should report (such as, for example, scopes 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions, and greenhouse gas reduction goals)? What quantified and measured information or metrics should be disclosed because it may be material to an investment or voting decision?  Should disclosures be tiered or scaled based on the size and/or type of registrant)? If so, how? Should disclosures be phased in over time? If so, how? How are markets evaluating and pricing externalities of contributions to climate change? Do climate change related impacts affect the cost of capital, and if so, how and in what ways? How have registrants or investors analyzed risks and costs associated with climate change? What are registrants doing internally to evaluate or project climate scenarios, and what information from or about such internal evaluations should be disclosed to investors to inform investment and voting decisions? How does the absence or presence of robust carbon markets impact firms’ analysis of the risks and costs associated with climate change?
3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of permitting investors, registrants, and other industry participants to develop disclosure standards mutually agreed by them? Should those standards satisfy minimum disclosure requirements established by the Commission? How should such a system work? What minimum disclosure requirements should the Commission establish if it were to allow industry-led disclosure standards? What level of granularity should be used to define industries (e.g., two-digit SIC, four-digit SIC, etc.)?
4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of establishing different climate change reporting standards for different industries, such as the financial sector, oil and gas, transportation, etc.? How should any such industry-focused standards be developed and implemented?
5. What are the advantages and disadvantages of rules that incorporate or draw on existing frameworks, such as, for example, those developed by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), and the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB)?[7] Are there any specific frameworks that the Commission should consider? If so, which frameworks and why?
6. How should any disclosure requirements be updated, improved, augmented, or otherwise changed over time? Should the Commission itself carry out these tasks, or should it adopt or identify criteria for identifying other organization(s) to do so? If the latter, what organization(s) should be responsible for doing so, and what role should the Commission play in governance or funding? Should the Commission designate a climate or ESG disclosure standard setter? If so, what should the characteristics of such a standard setter be? Is there an existing climate disclosure standard setter that the Commission should consider?
7. What is the best approach for requiring climate-related disclosures? For example, should any such disclosures be incorporated into existing rules such as Regulation S-K or Regulation S-X, or should a new regulation devoted entirely to climate risks, opportunities, and impacts be promulgated? Should any such disclosures be filed with or furnished to the Commission?   
8. How, if at all, should registrants disclose their internal governance and oversight of climate-related issues? For example, what are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring disclosure concerning the connection between executive or employee compensation and climate change risks and impacts?
9. What are the advantages and disadvantages of developing a single set of global standards applicable to companies around the world, including registrants under the Commission’s rules, versus multiple standard setters and standards? If there were to be a single standard setter and set of standards, which one should it be? What are the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a minimum global set of standards as a baseline that individual jurisdictions could build on versus a comprehensive set of standards? If there are multiple standard setters, how can standards be aligned to enhance comparability and reliability? What should be the interaction between any global standard and Commission requirements? If the Commission were to endorse or incorporate a global standard, what are the advantages and disadvantages of having mandatory compliance?
10. How should disclosures under any such standards be enforced or assessed?  For example, what are the advantages and disadvantages of making disclosures subject to audit or another form of assurance? If there is an audit or assurance process or requirement, what organization(s) should perform such tasks? What relationship should the Commission or other existing bodies have to such tasks? What assurance framework should the Commission consider requiring or permitting?
11. Should the Commission consider other measures to ensure the reliability of climate-related disclosures? Should the Commission, for example, consider whether management’s annual report on internal control over financial reporting and related requirements should be updated to ensure sufficient analysis of controls around climate reporting? Should the Commission consider requiring a certification by the CEO, CFO, or other corporate officer relating to climate disclosures?
12. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a “comply or explain” framework for climate change that would permit registrants to either comply with, or if they do not comply, explain why they have not complied with the disclosure rules? How should this work? Should “comply or explain” apply to all climate change disclosures or just select ones, and why?
13. How should the Commission craft rules that elicit meaningful discussion of the registrant’s views on its climate-related risks and opportunities? What are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring disclosed metrics to be accompanied with a sustainability disclosure and analysis section similar to the current Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations?
14. What climate-related information is available with respect to private companies, and how should the Commission’s rules address private companies’ climate disclosures, such as through exempt offerings, or its oversight of certain investment advisers and funds?
15. In addition to climate-related disclosure, the staff is evaluating a range of disclosure issues under the heading of environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, matters. Should climate-related requirements be one component of a broader ESG disclosure framework? How should the Commission craft climate-related disclosure requirements that would complement a broader ESG disclosure standard? How do climate-related disclosure issues relate to the broader spectrum of ESG disclosure issues?

À la prochaine…

Émission intéressante dans Le temps du débat (animé par par Raphaël Bourgois) offerte par France Culture le 5 décembre 2020 : « Tech For Good : les entreprises peuvent-elles travailler au bien commun ? ».

Résumé

L’Appel Tech for Good a été signé lundi 30 novembre, aboutissement d’une initiative lancée en mai 2018 par Emmanuel Macron, lorsqu’il invitait à l’Elysée les géants du numérique. Deux ans et demi plus tard l’Appel Tech for Good a été signé par 75 grandes entreprises qui assurent de leur engagement à « mettre la technologie au service du progrès humain ». On notera tout de même l’absence de deux entreprises de taille : les américains Amazon et Apple ont pour l’instant refusé de s’associer à cette initiative pourtant non contraignante.

A ce volet, qu’on pourrait dire éthique, il faut ajouter un volet réglementaire au niveau européen : le 15 décembre la Commission devrait présenter le Digital Services Act et le Digital Market Act. Son objectif : mieux définir la responsabilité des plateformes et des réseaux, mais aussi dépoussiérer le droit de la concurrence, empêcher les abus de position dominante et permettre à des alternatives européennes d’émerger.

Il y aurait donc un mouvement général vers un meilleur encadrement des entreprises, leur responsabilisation sur des enjeux comme l’environnement, la diversité, le partage de la valeur ou le partage du pouvoir. Et les entreprises dites de la Tech en seraient le fer de lance. L’économie de demain sera écologique et sociale ou ne sera pas disent les uns… tout ceci n’est green ou social washing rétorquent les autres. Mais surtout, la question qui reste entière c’est de savoir qui dit le « good », de quel « bien » parle-t-on, qui et comment le mesure-t-on ?

À la prochaine…

Mme Hoyé propose une tribune intéressante sur la RSE dans son article « Responsabilité sociale des entreprises: où en sommes-nous ? » publié sur Ligere.fr le 17 septembre 2020. Elle fait le point et soulève le chemin encore à parcourir…

Extrait :

Au cours de ces dix dernières année, une évolution a été observée dans le sens de la nécessité croissante de « redéfinir le droit des sociétés » pour mieux prendre en compte l’évolution de l’analyse du droit et de l’économie. L’objectif sociétaire traditionnel porté par la « doctrine juridique de la personnalité d’entreprise », tient à la protection des intérêts des membres et des créanciers de la société. Les profits générés sont ensuite partagés entre les actionnaires considérés comme propriétaires de l’entreprise. Ainsi, l’approche de la théorie contractuelle prévaut et la promesse tacite des dirigeants de maximiser la richesse des actionnaires s’opère. En effet, selon la théorie de la Corporate Governance, il existe une nette distinction entre le rôle des propriétaires d’une société (les actionnaires) et des dirigeants (le conseil d’administration) lorsqu’il s’agit de prendre des décisions stratégiques efficaces. L’actuelle « coutume de la retenue » en matière d’éthique, complète l’accent mis sur une analyse économique de la fonction d’entreprise où les concepts d’efficience et de rentabilité semblent persister. Caractérisés par ses propres règles de position, les bénéfices sont considérés comme la « ligne de fond » de l’entreprise, et par conséquent, selon l’argument, il n’y a aucune possibilité d’évaluer moralement les activités menées dans ce cadre d’activité.

Pourtant, face aux nouveaux enjeux auxquels se confrontent les sociétés au XXIème siècle, la thèse de « l’entreprise- profit » soutenue par Friedman ne semble plus être à l’ordre du jour. Dès lors, les entreprises peuvent-elles entreprendre une activité économique dite « durable », où la recherche exclusive de bénéfices s’estompe au profit d’une meilleure éthique entrepreneuriale? L’éthique s’érige désormais comme élément incontournable de l’ensemble des concepts que nous pourrions utiliser pour tenir compte de la fonction organisationnelle que détiennent les entreprises. Non pas que les actions des sociétés peuvent avoir des effets puissants, à la fois bénéfiques et/ou préjudiciables, mais parce qu’une prise en compte éthique des actions des sociétés est presque impérative pour atteindre une croissance durable. Il s’agit d’optimiser les performances en évoluant vers une responsabilité sociale et environnementale (RSE) où les sociétés sont responsables de l’impact de leurs actions sur la société civile. L’entreprise doit alors intégrer à sa stratégie l’ensemble de sa chaîne de valeur, dont les parties prenantes (« stakeholders »), de manière à minimiser et à compenser les effets négatifs de son activité. L’objectif étant d’atteindre une qualité de vie au moins aussi bonne que celle dont nous bénéficions aujourd’hui, comme le soutien le « rapport Brutland » (1987). Pour cela, il est primordial que les structures de gouvernance d’entreprise agissent tant en termes de bien-être des employés, qu’en termes d’efficacité et de productivité. Cela implique l’utilisation de critères éthiques, sociaux et environnementaux (les 3 piliers de la théorie de « corporate governance ») dans la sélection et la gestion des portefeuilles de placements. De ce point de vue, l’idée d’équilibrer les responsabilités de l’entreprise se développe, acceptant le fait que les entreprises peuvent créer de la valeur en gérant mieux le capital naturel, humain et social.

(…) Dans le cadre transnational, divers outils d’orientation souvent à caractère facultatif visent à promouvoir le développement durable et le civisme social. En tant que préoccupation mondiale, une croissance durable ne peut être atteinte que si tous les pays agissent de concert mettant en oeuvre des actions coordonnées. C’était notamment l’objectif de l’accord de Paris en « faisant en sorte que les flux financiers soient cohérents avec une voie vers une réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre et un développement résilient au climat ». Le pacte Mondial lancé officiellement en 2000 invite les entreprises à adhérer, appliquer et promouvoir 10 principes en matière de droits fondamentaux. Cette adhésion a été assortie à l’obligation pour les entreprises de publier chaque année une communication sur les progrès réalisés dans l’application des principes. L’entreprise qui ne réalise pas cette obligation est considérée comme « non communicante » et peut être à terme radiée. Aussi, les Nations Unies ont présenté un projet de normes sur les responsabilités des sociétés transnationales et autres entreprises commerciales en matière de droits de l’homme. Les principes de Rugie font peser sur les entreprises des contrôles et vérifications périodiques par des organes nationaux ou multinationaux, permettant ainsi de prescrire un grand nombre d’actions concrètes à mener par les entreprises pour respecter les droits de l’homme . Ces travaux ont abouti à l’adoption d’une résolution du Conseil des Droits de l’Homme de l’ONU s’articulant autour de trois axes: « protéger, respecter et remédier » contribuant à faire progresser le débat juridique sur le rôle des Etats et des entreprises dans le domaine des droits de l’homme.

Pour autant, malgré la construction d’une voie de responsabilité internationale des entreprises, de nombreuses divergences peuvent encore être mises en évidence. C’est surtout l’absence de réglementation uniforme qui a attiré l’attention de la Commission européenne poussée à établir une certaine crédibilité et une harmonisation des pratiques avec une transparence des critères afin de combler le vide existant. Ainsi, dans sa stratégie RSE du 25 octobre 2011, la Commission fournit un cadre normatif de protection, via des sections comprenant la Direction Générale des Entreprises et la Société de l’Information qui guident le comportement des entreprises afin d’étendre l’influence de la RSE pour les responsabiliser vis-à-vis des effets qu’elles exercent sur la société. Par ailleurs, le levier du droit fiscal a été adopté par l’Union européenne dans un contexte juridique de financement durable, mettant en place une taxation corrective qui promeut les projets les plus respectueux et taxe ceux qui sont dommageables dans le but d’orienter les comportements vers une situation économique jugée optimale. Ces initiatives ont été prises par les institutions européennes afin d’encourager les entreprises à « aller au-delà de la conformité », soulignant qu’il existe une relation entre les actions proactives et l’amélioration de la compétitivité. Au moins, la politique de l’UE indique clairement que les actions volontaires des entreprises ne doivent pas être considérées comme un substitut à la réglementation légale. C’est pourquoi l’UE doit continuer à soutenir de manière proactive les activités qui peuvent faciliter le progrès de la conduite responsable des entreprises en encourageant les acteurs des secteurs clés à s’appuyer sur des projets responsables et à définir des exigences de diligence raisonnable.

(…)

Ainsi, il apparaît essentiel de définir un équilibre stable entre les impératifs moraux et économiques. Les entreprises, comme l’ensemble des agents ont des devoirs moraux, des responsabilités sociales et devraient être de « bonnes entreprises citoyennes ». C’est ce que met en exergue le nouveau « duty of care » ( devoir de diligence) désormais attendu des sociétés, qui encourage une voie de réorientation de la logique du système productif vers de nouveaux objectifs plus responsables. Ce devoir conduirait à l’acceptation d’une rentabilité financière moindre à court terme, en renonçant aux bénéfices immédiats, afin d’encourager un développement éthique, social et durable sur une activité économique à plus long terme. Un tel principe doit être appuyé par toutes les parties prenantes afin que le mouvement soit étendu à l’ensemble des agents économiques. Néanmoins, il est encore tôt pour prédire les effets de ces changements, qui soulèvent la question des méthodes de régulation, leur introduction étant encore récente et sans changement réel, notamment du fait du peu de mesures actuelles permettant d’imposer des sanctions. Par ailleurs, il convient également de noter la spécificité des questions environnementales, qui ne sont pas seulement dépendantes de la gouvernance des entreprises mais font appel à d’autres acteurs (dépendance à la science, prospective, etc.) et suggèrent des investissements importants afin de se libérer des ressources naturelles et éviter une complète destruction de la valeur. Le problème ne dépend plus de l’ignorance, mais de la vitesse des changements ainsi que de la propagation des déséquilibres. Par conséquent, le droit des sociétés peut être une réponse, mais la réflexion interdisciplinaire semble hautement nécessaire pour parvenir à la possibilité d’un équilibre entre le développement durable et la primauté des actionnaires.

Article à lire de M. Ashwell dans Corporate Secretary : « The threat of employee shareholder activism » (7 août 2020). Intéressante perspective sur l’activisme poussé de manière indirecte par la situation des salariés des entreprises.

Extrait :

Facing an employee-backed or employee-led shareholder proposal generates media attention and causes embarrassment for senior management. But are these recent examples a flash in the pan, or should more companies be bracing for employee-shareholder activism?

A confluence of circumstances

Pat Tomaino is director of socially responsible investing at Zevin Asset Management and has filed shareholder proposals at Alphabet and Amazon, as well as other large technology companies, in recent years. He worked with an employee group at Alphabet, following a mass employee walkout at Google in 2018.

‘It’s a strategy that we as impact investors want to leverage more in the future, but it really depends on a confluence of circumstances,’ he says. ‘We’re not in the business of instigating employee activity inside companies – that’s not the role of investors. We have a stake in the financial outlook of the company. We’re not creating employee activism but, where we do see that it exists, we take that into account. What are employees asking for and why are they acting that way? What signal should we take for how companies are handling their long-term ESG goals?’

Tomaino says that when he has talked to employee groups at large technology companies about shareholder proposals, there’s a feeling that they have tried other avenues of feedback and activism internally. ‘These employees had tried the usual channels and were looking for levers to make change,’ he says. ‘They’d done direct action, they’d talked to the press and they’d noticed that there’s power through shareholder proposals.’

In Germany, employee-shareholder activism is much more established. Labor groups have experimented with shareholder proposals since the early 1990s, according to an academic report from Natascha van der Zwan, assistant professor of public administration at Leiden University. One particularly notable example she highlights is the Deutsche Telecom annual meeting in 2007, when around 1,000 employees entered the meeting to voice discontent about increased working hours and pay cuts as part of a corporate restructuring. Employee-shareholders reportedly signed their voting rights over to local labor unions to oppose the restructuring, as part of a broader campaign involving employee walkouts and labor union protests.

For board directors in the US, Gillian Emmett Moldowan, partner at Shearman & Sterling, says it’s never been more important to receive meaningful updates about nonexecutive employees.

‘Employee campaigns of any nature get significant press attention,’ she explains. ‘Boards have historically been more separated from non-executive employee issues, whether it’s compensation or workers’ issues, or how employees feel about the firm as a whole. I would encourage boards to get an understanding from those who report into the board of human capital management risk and enterprise risks, as well as an understanding of what the company is doing to assess and mitigate those risks.

‘If boards have not historically received information about employee satisfaction and employee sentiment about the company management, then getting hold of that information is a good first step.’

Structural issues

Instances of recent employee shareholder activism have defining traits that may not be replicated elsewhere. For instance, Tomaino explains that many Alphabet employees involved in the shareholder action feel aggrieved at how they think the company’s mission has changed. Google’s motto in its IPO documents was ‘Don’t be evil’, but it has since dropped the slogan and employees have expressed concerns about the direction the company is moving, including in its bidding for national defense contracts.

Aalap Shah, managing director at Pearl Meyer, highlights several structural issues that may make companies more at risk of employee shareholder activism in the future.

‘Part of the issue is the power some companies have given to their employees through equity,’ he explains. ‘In addition, many of these companies are recruiting from the same talent pool, where there’s a desire to work for a company that has some sort of positive purpose. There is significantly more desire [on the part of] millennials and Gen Z to be part of an organization that has purpose, and you’re going to have to compete for that top talent by giving them equity.’

Tomaino says employees with large amounts of their personal net worth tied up in company stock will view themselves as engaged investors as much as employees. But Moldowan says this shouldn’t make companies think differently about granting stock options to employees as part of their compensation packages.

‘Shareholders can bring a proposal if they qualify to do so under the proxy rules, and those shares can be bought on the market – they need not come from an equity compensation plan,’ she says. ‘Not giving equity awards won’t stop an employee acquiring equity by other means.’

An Amazon employee group recently filed a comment letter with the SEC expressing concerns and opposition to proposed changes to Rule 14a-8, on the grounds that planned shifts to share ownership and proposal resubmission thresholds would make it harder for employee groups to advocate for change.

All of the interviewees for this article agree that it’s important for boards to receive information about employee sentiment and for boards or management to be seen to respond appropriately when employee groups express significant levels of discontent. Tomaino acknowledges that it’s unlikely large passive investors would vote in favor of employees and against management – unless the proposal was on something truly egregious – but that a proposal can help cause embarrassment for management that may drive change.

As Covid-19 shines a greater light on the treatment and recognition of employees, and the Business Roundtable’s statement equally prompts stakeholders to question companies when they feel they’re not being given a fair hearing, this may not be the last we see of employee participation in shareholder proposals in the US.

À la prochaine…

Excellente lecture ce matin de ce billet du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance : « Legal Liability for ESG Disclosures » (de Connor Kuratek, Joseph A. Hall et Betty M. Huber, 3 août 2020). Dans cette publication, vous trouverez non seulement une belle synthèse des référentiels actuels, mais aussi une réflexion sur les conséquences attachées à la mauvaise divulgation d »information.

Extrait :

3. Legal Liability Considerations

Notwithstanding the SEC’s position that it will not—at this time—mandate additional climate or ESG disclosure, companies must still be mindful of the potential legal risks and litigation costs that may be associated with making these disclosures voluntarily. Although the federal securities laws generally do not require the disclosure of ESG data except in limited instances, potential liability may arise from making ESG-related disclosures that are materially misleading or false. In addition, the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws apply not only to SEC filings, but also extend to less formal communications such as citizenship reports, press releases and websites. Lastly, in addition to potential liability stemming from federal securities laws, potential liability could arise from other statutes and regulations, such as federal and state consumer protection laws.

A. Federal Securities Laws

When they arise, claims relating to a company’s ESG disclosure are generally brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which covers material misstatements and omissions in securities offering documents, and under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5, the principal anti-fraud provisions. To date, claims brought under these two provisions have been largely unsuccessful. Cases that have survived the motion to dismiss include statements relating to cybersecurity (which many commentators view as falling under the “S” or “G” of ESG), an oil company’s safety measures, mine safety and internal financial integrity controls found in the company’s sustainability report, website, SEC filings and/or investor presentations.

Interestingly, courts have also found in favor of plaintiffs alleging rule 10b-5 violations for statements made in a company’s code of conduct. Complaints, many of which have been brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, have included allegations that a company’s code of conduct falsely represented company standards or that public comments made by the company about the code misleadingly publicized the quality of ethical controls. In some circumstances, courts found that statements about or within such codes were more than merely aspirational and did not constitute inactionable puffery, including when viewed in context rather than in isolation. In late March 2020, for example, a company settled a securities class action for $240 million alleging that statements in its code of conduct and code of ethics were false or misleading. The facts of this case were unusual, but it is likely that securities plaintiffs will seek to leverage rulings from the court in that class action to pursue other cases involving code of conducts or ethics. It remains to be seen whether any of these code of conduct case holdings may in the future be extended to apply to cases alleging 10b-5 violations for statements made in a company’s ESG reports.

B. State Consumer Protection Laws

Claims under U.S. state consumer protection laws have been of limited success. Nevertheless, many cases have been appealed which has resulted in additional litigation costs in circumstances where these costs were already significant even when not appealed. Recent claims that were appealed, even if ultimately failed, and which survived the motion to dismiss stage, include claims brought under California’s consumer protection laws alleging that human right commitments on a company website imposed on such company a duty to disclose on its labels that it or its supply chain could be employing child and/or forced labor. Cases have also been dismissed for lack of causal connection between alleged violation and economic injury including a claim under California, Florida and Texas consumer protection statutes alleging that the operator of several theme parks failed to disclose material facts about its treatment of orcas. The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but was dismissed for failure to show a causal connection between the alleged violation and the plaintiffs’ economic injury.

Overall, successful litigation relating to ESG disclosures is still very much a rare occurrence. However, this does not mean that companies are therefore insulated from litigation risk. Although perhaps not ultimately successful, merely having a claim initiated against a company can have serious reputational damage and may cause a company to incur significant litigation and public relations costs. The next section outlines three key takeaways and related best practices aimed to reduce such risks.

C. Practical Recommendations

Although the above makes clear that ESG litigation to date is often unsuccessful, companies should still be wary of the significant impacts of such litigation. The following outlines some key takeaways and best practices for companies seeking to continue ESG disclosure while simultaneously limiting litigation risk.

Key Takeaway 1: Disclaimers are Critical

As more and more companies publish reports on ESG performance, like disclaimers on forward-looking statements in SEC filings, companies are beginning to include disclaimers in their ESG reports, which disclaimers may or may not provide protection against potential litigation risks. In many cases, the language found in ESG reports will mirror language in SEC filings, though some companies have begun to tailor them specifically to the content of their ESG reports.

From our limited survey of companies across four industries that receive significant pressure to publish such reports—Banking, Chemicals, Oil & Gas and Utilities & Power—the following preliminary conclusions were drawn:

• All companies surveyed across all sectors have some type of “forward-looking statement” disclaimer in their SEC filings; however, these were generic disclaimers that were not tailored to ESG-specific facts and topics or relating to items discussed in their ESG reports.
• Most companies had some sort of disclaimer in their Sustainability Report, although some were lacking one altogether. Very few companies had disclaimers that were tailored to the specific facts and topics discussed in their ESG reports:
  • In the Oil & Gas industry, one company surveyed had a tailored ESG disclaimer in its ESG Report; all others had either the same disclaimer as in SEC filings or a shortened version that was generally very broad.
  • In the Banking industry, two companies lacked disclaimers altogether, but the rest had either their SEC disclaimer or a shortened version.
  • In the Utilities & Power industry, one company had no disclaimer, but the rest had general disclaimers.
  • In the Chemicals industry, three companies had no disclaimer in their reports, but the rest had shortened general disclaimers.
• There seems to be a disconnect between the disclaimers being used in SEC filings and those found in ESG In particular, ESG disclaimers are generally shorter and will often reference more detailed disclaimers found in SEC filings.

Best Practices: When drafting ESG disclaimers, companies should:

• Draft ESG disclaimers carefully. ESG disclaimers should be drafted in a way that explicitly covers ESG data so as to reduce the risk of litigation.
• State that ESG data is non-GAAP. ESG data is usually non-GAAP and non-audited; this should be made clear in any ESG Disclaimer.
• Have consistent disclaimers. Although disclaimers in SEC filings appear to be more detailed, disclaimers across all company documents that reference ESG data should specifically address these issues. As more companies start incorporating ESG into their proxies and other SEC filings, it is important that all language follows through.

Key Takeaway 2: ESG Reporting Can Pose Risks to a Company

This article highlighted the clear risks associated with inattentive ESG disclosure: potential litigation; bad publicity; and significant costs, among other things.

Best Practices: Companies should ensure statements in ESG reports are supported by fact or data and should limit overly aspirational statements. Representations made in ESG Reports may become actionable, so companies should disclose only what is accurate and relevant to the company.

Striking the right balance may be difficult; many companies will under-disclose, while others may over-disclose. Companies should therefore only disclose what is accurate and relevant to the company. The US Chamber of Commerce, in their ESG Reporting Best Practices, suggests things in a similar vein: do not include ESG metrics into SEC filings; only disclose what is useful to the intended audience and ensure that ESG reports are subject to a “rigorous internal review process to ensure accuracy and completeness.”

Key Takeaway 3: ESG Reporting Can Also be Beneficial for Companies

The threat of potential litigation should not dissuade companies from disclosing sustainability frameworks and metrics. Not only are companies facing investor pressure to disclose ESG metrics, but such disclosure may also incentivize companies to improve internal risk management policies, internal and external decisional-making capabilities and may increase legal and protection when there is a duty to disclose. Moreover, as ESG investing becomes increasingly popular, it is important for companies to be aware that robust ESG reporting, which in turn may lead to stronger ESG ratings, can be useful in attracting potential investors.

Best Practices: Companies should try to understand key ESG rating and reporting methodologies and how they match their company profile.

The growing interest in ESG metrics has meant that the number of ESG raters has grown exponentially, making it difficult for many companies to understand how each “rater” calculates a company’s ESG score. Resources such as the Better Alignment Project run by the Corporate Reporting Dialogue, strive to better align corporate reporting requirements and can give companies an idea of how frameworks such as CDP, CDSB, GRI and SASB overlap. By understanding the current ESG market raters and methodologies, companies will be able to better align their ESG disclosures with them. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce report noted above also suggests that companies should “engage with their peers and investors to shape ESG disclosure frameworks and standards that are fit for their purpose.”

À la prochaine…