Responsabilité sociale des entreprises | Page 3

Le Ministère du travail américain soumet à commentaire une proposition inquiétante pour l’investissement responsable. Cette proposition est détaillée dans l’Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance : « DOL Proposes New Rules Regulating ESG Investments » (7 juillet 2020).

Extrait :

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) has proposed for public comment rules that would further burden the ability of fiduciaries of private-sector retirement plans to select investments based on ESG factors and would bar 401(k) plans from using a fund with any ESG mandate as the default investment alternative for non-electing participants.

The proposed rules would prohibit a retirement plan fiduciary from making any investment, or choosing an investment fund, based on the consideration of an environmental, societal or governmental factor unless that factor independently represents a material economic investment consideration under generally accepted investment theories or serves as a tiebreaker in what the DOL characterizes as the rare case of economically equivalent investments. In order to select an investment with an ESG component, the plan fiduciaries would be required to compare investments or strategies on “pecuniary” factors such as diversification, liquidity and rate of return. Specific documentation would be required for the tiebreaker justification and for the selection and monitoring of an investment alternative in a 401(k) plan that includes ESG in its mandate or fund name. Most significantly, the proposed rules would prohibit a 401(k) plan from providing a qualified default investment alternative (“QDIA”) with an ESG component, no matter how small, even if that investment alternative satisfies the pecuniary factor requirements.

À la prochaine…

Intéressant billet sur le Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance mettant en avant l’importance prise par le « S » des critères ESG : « Time to Rethink the S in ESG » (Jonathan Neilan, Peter Reilly, et Glenn Fitzpatrick, 28 juin 2020).

Extrait :

In advising companies on protecting and enhancing corporate reputation—through good and bad times—our guiding principle is to ‘do the right thing’. Simple as it sounds, it is reflected in the adage that ‘good PR starts with good behaviour’. This guiding principle also translates to building your ‘S’ credentials. While the various ESG criteria of the reporting frameworks and ratings agencies are a useful guide, our consistent approach in advising companies is for them to take the steps they believe are genuinely in the best interest of the company and its wider stakeholders. Not every decision will meet the expectations of every stakeholder; but it’s a good place to start.

As the wider sustainability agenda also drives more rapid and fundamental change in global markets and technology innovation, properly considering the pressure from public policy and evolving legal requirements, as well as the needs of key stakeholders, is key to understanding what is (and will be seen as) ‘good behaviour’.

As the focus on the ‘S’ grows, companies will need to shift from a reactive to a proactive position. While governance and environmental data is readily available for most companies, the same is not true of the ‘S’. The leeway companies have been afforded on the ‘S’ in the past is unlikely to continue; and, expectations of (and measurement by) rating agencies and investors will continue to increase.

In light of the economic shocks and social upheaval across the globe, demands from stakeholders—most pressingly investors and Governments—will reach a crescendo over the coming six months. As the sole arbiter of much of the information needed to value the ‘S’ in ESG, companies have an opportunity to demonstrate a willingness to shift levels of transparency before they are forced to do so. Companies understandably tend to highlight the efforts they make, often through their corporate social responsibility or communications departments, rather than the higher-cost, higher-risk analysis of the effectiveness of those efforts. Fundamentally, hastened by the emergence of a global pandemic, the world recognises the significance of the risk that failure to address stakeholder interests and expectations represents to business. That shift can be identified as demand for evidence of positive outcomes as opposed to simply efforts or policies.

As we noted in our 2019 Paper, ESG will never replace financial performance as the primary driver of company valuations. Increasingly, however, it is proving to drive the cost of capital down for companies while playing a hugely important role in companies’ risk management frameworks. Most immediately, companies should get a firm handle on how comprehensive their policies, procedures and data are in the five areas listed through a candid audit, as well as other factors material to their businesses’ long-term success. However, this is just a first step and companies must build a narrative and strategy around disclosure for all future annual reports and, where appropriate, market communications. Investors of all sizes are increasingly driving this factor home to Boards and management. In just one week at the end of April, human capital management proposals from As You Sow, a non-for-profit foundation, received 61% and 79% support at two S&P 500 companies, Fastenal and Genuine Parts, respectively. The two companies must now prepare reports on diversity and inclusion, and describe the company’s policies, performance, and improvement targets related to material human capital risks and opportunities as designed by a small shareholder—as opposed to crafting an approach and associated disclosure themselves.

What has become clear over the past three months is that a host of stakeholders, including many investors, will expect a sea-change in their access to information and company practices. While there is no requirement to be the first mover on this, those that are laggards will face avoidable challenges and a rising threat to their ‘licence to operate’.

À la prochaine…

Dans Finance et investissement du 27 avril 2020, figure un article intéressant montrant que les entreprises et fonds faisant place aux facteurs ESG performent mieux dans le contexte de la COVID-19 : « COVID-19 : les facteurs ESG ne sont pas à négliger ».

Extrait :

Si nombre de personnes se désintéressent des considérations environnementales, sociales et de gouvernance (ESG) des entreprises en ces temps de crise, elles devraient revoir leurs priorités. Nombre d’experts affirment ainsi que ces facteurs importent plus que jamais, relate un article récent de Morningstar.

Aux États-Unis, les fonds communs de placement (FCP) et les fonds négociés en Bourse (FNB) d’actions ESG performent mieux que leurs homologues conventionnels, selon le chef de la recherche sur la durabilité à Morningstar, Jon Hale.

« Comme tous les autres fonds d’action, ceux qui sont axés sur la durabilité ont subi soudainement de grosses pertes au premier trimestre de 2020 à cause de la pandémie du coronavirus, mais ils ont mieux tenu le coup que les fonds conventionnels. Sept fonds d’action durables sur 10 ont fini dans la première moitié de leurs catégories respectives, et 24 sur 26 fonds indiciels axés sur les facteurs ESG ont surclassé leurs proches homologues conventionnels », précise-t-il.

« Les sociétés bien gérées, plus stables et plus sûres avec des pratiques environnementales, sociales de gouvernance (ESG) solides ont généralement mieux réagi à la crise », convient le directeur général de Calvert, John Streur.

Jon Hale explique la meilleure performance des fonds durables par rapport à leurs homologues conventionnels en raison de leurs placements principalement sur des sociétés au risque ESG plus faible et aussi pour leur tendance à sous-pondérer les titres énergétiques.

Si cette performance s’explique concrètement, la logique générale suivie par ces fonds s’applique particulièrement bien à une situation comme celle que nous vivons aujourd’hui.

« Les priorités ESG sont en fait essentielles pour le développement de la valeur des actions d’une société, notamment à long terme. Beaucoup des priorités que nous recommandons ou dont nous nous faisons apôtres pour les investisseurs en temps « normal » sont aussi prioritaires en ce moment », signale Anthony Schein, directeur du plaidoyer pour les actionnaires à SHARE.

À la prochaine…

Financial Advisor publie une synthèse pertinente à l’heure de la COVID-19 : « ‘Social Washing’ Is Becoming Growing Headache For ESG Investors » (par Alastair Marsh, 10 avril 2020).

Extrait :

ESG investors face a new threat in the age of coronavirus: “social washing.”

Much like the greenwashing that exaggerates or misrepresents the environmental credentials of a project or a company, social washing can occur when the impact of an investment on labor rights or human rights are falsely overstated, said Arthur Krebbers, head of sustainable finance for corporates at Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc’s NatWest Markets unit. And it’s a growing risk as investors focus more attention on social issues.

In the past six weeks, NatWest has seen a significant increase in inquiries from clients on issues such as sick leave for workers and the rights of contract workers.

The coronavirus outbreak is awakening fund managers who consider environmental, social and governance issues when investing to blind spots in their analysis of companies. While fighting climate change has been the top priority for many ESG funds, the spreading pandemic is prompting investors to put a greater emphasis on the “S” of ESG and consider how companies treat employees during the pandemic.

Krebbers’s comments followed the Principles for Responsible Investment, the biggest network of responsible investment firms, which said last month that ESG investors must up their game to hold companies accountable for social issues. The PRI emphasized how the lack of paid sick leave or benefits has left many workers in precarious positions during coronavirus lockdowns.

“The big challenge with social is the data,” Krebbers said. “The reporting tends to be more localized and it’s harder to define, especially when you compare to environmental issues where the carbon footprint provides for a well-understood, comparable metric. A lot more thought and analysis is required if we are to avoid ‘social washing’ situations.”

À la prochaine…

Les fonds d’investissement apportent-ils réellement leur soutien aux critères lorsqu’ils exercent leur vote ? Voilà une belle à laquelle un auteur apporte malheureusement une réponse négative : Caleb Griffin, Environmental & Social Voting at Index Funds (February 14, 2020), https://ssrn.com/abstract=. On est donc encore loin des voeux affichés par les gros joueurs de l’industrie semble-t-il…

Résumé :

This Article demonstrates that, despite a considerable marketing focus on their E&S efforts, overall support for E&S proposals is low for the Big Three.

In the 2018-2019 proxy season, Vanguard’s largest funds supported 7.5% of unique shareholder E&S proposals, while State Street’s largest funds supported 22.7% of such proposals and BlackRock’s largest funds supported 7.1% of such proposals. Other funds support E&S proposals at far higher rates (e.g., Deutsche Bank at 77.9%) and far lower rates (e.g., Dimensional at 0%). Given that funds have a fiduciary duty to vote in the “best interests” of their investors, which fund got it right? The surprising answer is that no one knows—not even the funds themselves. Only by blind luck could these funds, who seek no input from their investors and make no serious attempts to discern investor preferences, be accurately reflecting investors’ interests with their voting behaviors. What are the odds that all, or even the majority, of Vanguard’s investors would benefit from just 7.5% of shareholder E&S proposals while State Street’s shareholders would benefit from 22.7% and Deutsche’s shareholders would benefit from 77.9%? What is the likelihood that BlackRock’s SRI investors would be satisfied with support for 27.7% of E&S proposals while Vanguard’s SRI investors were satisfied with support for 2.2% of such proposals? Is it probable that Guggenheim’s investors are well-served by 77.9% of SRI activities while Dimensional’s investors were well-served by exactly 0% of them?

Ultimately, this Article concludes that it is a convenient myth that index fund stewardship teams are even marginally constrained by the “best interests” standard when voting on E&S proposals, and likely other proposals as well. The truth is that these index funds, possessing the power to decide the fate of most E&S proposals, can do as they wish with that power. The status quo urgently needs change to ensure that index funds are truly acting in investors’ best interests. This Article proposes that such constraint should come in the form of greater input from index fund investors.

À la prochaine…

Selon le Wall Street Journal : « More Companies Are Making Noise About ESG » (4 octobre 2019). Voilà une bonne nouvelle pour la RSE !

Extrait :

Big U.S. companies are increasingly talking up environmental, social and governance factors on earnings calls—and betting that investors increasingly concerned with social responsibility will reward them for it.

Twenty-four companies in S&P 500 mentioned the acronym “ESG” on earnings conference calls between June 15 and Sept. 14, double the number that cited the term in the first quarter, according to FactSet.

That marks a huge increase from just two years earlier, when only two companies referred to ESG in the second quarter of 2017. But it still represents only 5% of the companies in the index.

The financial sector had the highest number of companies mentioning ESG, followed by the real-estate and utilities sectors.

À la prochaine…