CSRHub Blog Research on ESG metrics and comments on sustainability best practice

By Bahar Gidwani

This is part 3 of a 3-part series on Implementing SASB.

In my last two posts, I showed that two dissimilar industries may have a similar lack of preparedness to disclose material sustainability-related information to investors.  In order to conform to the guidance set out in SASB’s standards, the Metals & Mining (M&M) and Apparel, Accessories, & Footwear (AA&F) will need to collect large quantities of new data or reshape existing data streams.

Outside organizations such as government regulators and industry associations could prove to be crucial factors in moving these industries forward.  For instance, all US mining operations are required to report injuries to the Mining Safety Health Administration (MSHA).  Therefore, a high percentage of M&M companies are able to disclose information on their workplace health and safety issues.

Unfortunately, MSHA does not require companies to publicly disclose their reports to this agency.  Each company tends to to take its own approach to the scope and format of its public disclosure—and outside sources interpret these results in different ways.  The result is that the same company may get a good rating from one source and a bad one from another.

MSHA probably cannot change its disclosure rules without Congressional support—but, it could provide a pathway for sharing more of data—and for encouraging more consistent reports—by inviting companies to declare that their raw original filings can be collected and shared.  (This is similar to some of the efforts that have been undertaken in the supply chain area.  For instance SEDEX allows customers to share their audits of suppliers with one another.)  Then, sources who analyze this information would at least have the same starting point for their work—and companies could better compare their performance against those of their peers.

In AA&F the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) has led the way towards improved supply chain management for its members, by creating the Higg Index.  This set of tools is designed to help organize and harmonize supply data for the AA&F industry.  Unfortunately, only 21 of the 159 companies we studied in our AA&F report (13%) are members of SAC.  Note that their perceived sustainability performance is well above the average for the non-members.

The AA&F industry has formed special organizations to respond to supply chain issues.  For instance, in response to the Rana Plaza collapse, a group of European-based clothing companies set up the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh (Accord).  This group has grown to include 220 members, of whom 67 are tracked by CSRHub and 14 are part of the SICS group of Apparel, Accessories, & Footwear companies.  A second group of 17 mostly US companies set up the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety (Alliance).  Labor unions and other NGOs have criticized the garment industry for failing to create a unified response and for some of the actions of both groups.  In general there has been more support for the Accord group than for the Alliance (see this Clean Clothes Accord analysis, for instance), but both groups have been harshly criticized and many of the problems that underlay the Rana disaster (and the previous deadly fire also in Bangladesh, at the Tazreen factory in 2012), continue to be present.  Still, companies in both groups seem to have sustainability performances that are above the level for the industry in general.  This indicates that a combination of intra-industry leadership and external pressure could help move the AA&F industry forward.

More details on these findings are available in the SASS reports on these two industries.

In these three posts, we have shown that it may take many years for two industries to disclose all of the investor-material information that is described in the SASB standards.  During the adoption period, investors who desire the material information described in these standards will either need to work with partial data, use indicators that correlate with or can otherwise substitute for the desired metric, or invest in only those companies who have adopted the standard.  We do not know which approach will dominate or how long it will take before compliance becomes the norm and not the exception.  However, the next few years are likely to offer exciting opportunities to investors who specialize in using non-financial sustainability-related information.

See The SASS (Sustainable Accounting Standings Series) Apparel, Accessories and Footwear Industry Report.

See The SASS (Sustainable Accounting Standings Series) Metals & Mining Industry Report.

See part 1 of the Implementing SASB series.

See part 2 of the Implementing SASB series.

 Bahar Gidwani is CEO and Co-founder of CSRHub.  He has built and run large technology-based businesses for many years. Bahar holds a CFA, worked on Wall Street with Kidder, Peabody, and with McKinsey & Co. Bahar has consulted to a number of major companies and currently serves on the board of several software and Web companies. He has an MBA from Harvard Business School and an undergraduate degree in physics and astronomy. He plays bridge, races sailboats, and is based in New York City.

CSRHub provides access to the world’s largest corporate social responsibility and sustainability ratings and information.  It covers over 15,000 companies from 135 industries in 132 countries. By aggregating and normalizing the information from 435 data sources, CSRHub has created a broad, consistent rating system and a searchable database that links millions of rating elements back to their source. Managers, researchers and activists use CSRHub to benchmark company performance, learn how stakeholders evaluate company CSR practices, and seek ways to improve corporate sustainability performance.

By Guest Blogger, Kevin Hagen

The Hagen-Wilhelm Change Matrix

Phase IV is getting to some rarified space.  While there are groups or divisions within companies who are demonstrating phase IV behavior and results, there are few complete companies at this level.  To get a sense of how many, I turned to CSRHub.  This powerful on-line resource distills some 291 sources of data into a 100-point scoring system.  Using CSRHub score as an indicator of where a company is on the change matrix can give an idea of the distribution of companies on the journey.  Out of hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide, about 8,500 have been identified and analyzed for their sustainable business efforts.  Fewer than 2000 score above a 56 and no company scores above an 80.  That suggests that less than 1% of companies are possibly operating at stage IV.  With so little real world experience it becomes clearer why there is little understanding of this definition of “sustainability”.  It also says that companies just getting started are not too late.

An objective score is helpful, but it’s very difficult to use a single snapshot to understand where a company really is.  Remember, companies are just collections of people, each one has to make their own shift to sustainable business thinking. So what are other indicators of Stage IV?  One is when sustainable business skills, competencies and education are required to be successful at “ordinary” roles.  At REI it was pretty much required to understand sustainable forestry and the FSC system in order to be a paper buyer.  USGBC LEED accreditation was becoming a necessary credential to work in store development and real estate.  Competency with the Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s HiGG Index and other Life Cycle Assessment tools was becoming required to be a Product Designer.  And an understanding of social tools like those from the Fair Factories Clearinghouse is needed to be in sourcing.

Another indicator is to look at how “sustainability” projects are being managed. Is there a special project office running unique efforts, or are sustainable business criteria helping to drive priority and resources to projects across the organization.  How about collaboration?  Do good ideas have to climb a whole chain of command and then back down the other side in order to get permission to proceed, or are people at all hierarchy levels empowered to reach across silos to get things done?

More clues come from looking at business results. In stage IV negative environmental and social impacts (the brown line) are understood, measured and being aggressively addressed holistically.  In fact, through game-changing innovations, negative impacts have been disconnected from company growth and are being reduced in absolute terms without unintended consequences.  In other words, the brown line is going down while the business prospers.  Beyond success at “doing less bad”, the company has started to identify ways in which it can use the power of enterprise to create value and measurably make things better.  The Green Line is on the rise.

A good example happened at Gildan, a multibillion-dollar textile company based in Montreal, Canada.  At first they successfully improved energy efficiency in their mills in Central America (less fuel, less pollution, less cost = less bad).  Not satisfied, they radically redesigned the steam plant that runs their factory, switching from barges of imported bunker fuel oil to biofuels provided by local agricultural waste and secondary crops.  They not only eliminated carbon emissions and eliminated a potential spill hazard; they broke their financial dependence on external fossil fuel and replaced it with a stable local energy supply that also provides an economic engine for their community.  They used their business to create environment and social benefits while driving down operating costs and insulating themselves from risks.  That’s an example of the green line rising – Stage IV results.

Keys to the game: 

In previous articles I offered ways to anticipate what's coming and set the stage for successful next steps.  The problem this time: No one has reached Stage V, so we're not sure what the keys to the game are.  But I can offer an educated guess.

Radical Collaboration: As I talked about in an earlier article; Sustainability is a description of a system, not an individual entity or business.  Without a forest eco-system not even a tree is sustainable.  So in order for business to achieve sustainability we’ll have to do it together.  The capabilities for business people to engage with organizations outside their four walls will be critical.  While we’re used to working with customers and suppliers, the idea of radical collaboration is effective engagement with organizations in a more complex web - beyond buy/sell relationships. A great example is the Sustainable Apparel Coalition.  This is a group of well over 100 Brands, factories, NGOs, academics and others working to make the textile industry more transparent, accountable and profitable by tackling social and environmental challenges.  Learning the skills needed to be successful in these kinds of collaborations will certainly be a key in Phase V.

In the final post in the series, we’ll dive deeper into the illusive Phase V.

See Kevin's post introducing The Roadmap Series.
See The Roadmap Series: We all start at Stage I
See The Roadmap Series Phase II: The First Big Step
See The Roadmap Series, Phase III: From Personality to Process

Kevin Hagen is a sustainable business advocate. For over a decade he has helped business be more successful by making the shift to more sustainable thinking. As a leader inside medium to large companies or as an external advisor Kevin helped design and implement successful sustainability strategies and programs. Most recently, Kevin lead Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy and implementation at REI, a leading outdoor retailer and the U.S.'s largest consumer co-op. Kevin's team delivered great results, received a lot of recognition and showed that a mission based company with nearly $2B in sales can reduce it's environmental footprint while growing profitably. See Kevin's blog where he shares ideas, news and offer resources and organizations that he thinks can help companies make progress toward sustainability while delivering bottom line benefits at the same time.