“WHY” : TRANSPARENCY 4 Transparency: “accessibility of information to stakeholders of institutions, regarding matters that affect their interests” ~ Don Tapscott & David Ticoll, 2003 “Business-as-usual” is increasingly difficult in an age of instant communication. Whistle-blowers, inquisitive media, self-aware consumers and citizen activists routinely monitor and comment on every action of the firm far beyond its financial performance. Transparency thus is essential for businesses with brand values & reputation to protect. EXAMPLE: In the 1990’s, Nike faced a coordinated campaign by NGOs against its tolerance of labor practices in South East Asian production facilities that had a direct impact on the company’s brand value and reputation (Zadek 2004, Esbenshade 2004, pp ).
“WHY” Business today depends on, and/or drives impacts on, ALL dimensions of private & public wealth… but.. EXAMPLESPhysical CapitalHuman CapitalSocial CapitalNatural Capital Private Ownership -Factories -Buildings -Securities -Cash -Health -Education -Job Skills -Gardens -Fields -Forests Community Ownership * (club goods) -Community Centres -Community Schools - Traditional knowledge -Community Norms and Customs -Community Forests -Grazing Commons Public Ownership * (public goods) -Roads -Bridges -Public databases -Non-patent knowledge -Law & Order -Taxation -Social Equity & Inclusion -High Seas fisheries -National Parks/ Forests * Creating community wealth and public wealth creates “shared value”
“WHY” Business today generally measures & reports only shareholder wealth impacts: on private physical capital EXAMPLESPhysical CapitalHuman CapitalSocial CapitalNatural Capital Private Ownership -Factories -Buildings -Securities -Cash -Health -Education -Job Skills -Gardens -Fields -Forests Community Ownership (club goods) -Community Centres -Community Schools - Traditional knowledge -Community Norms and Customs -Community Forests -Grazing Commons Public Ownership (public goods) -Roads -Bridges -Public databases -Non-patent knowledge -Law & Order -Taxation -Social Equity & Inclusion -High Seas fisheries -National Parks/ Forests
“WHY” Business - for a sustainable future – will need to measure & report on ALL dimensions of its impacts … EXAMPLESPhysical CapitalHuman CapitalSocial CapitalNatural Capital Private Ownership -Factories -Buildings -Securities -Cash -Health -Education -Job Skills -Gardens -Fields -Forests Community Ownership * (club goods) -Community Centres -Community Schools - Traditional knowledge -Community Norms and Customs -Community Forests -Grazing Commons Public Ownership * (public goods) -Roads -Bridges -Public databases -Non-patent knowledge -Law & Order -Taxation -Social Equity & Inclusion -High Seas fisheries -National Parks/ Forests
Source: Trucost for UNPRI, Top 3,000 Listed Companies Externalities total USD 2.15 Trillion per year Negative Corporate Externalities ….. “WHY”?
Water Abstraction Greenhouse Gases Natural Resources ….. Are Pushing Planetary Boundaries “WHY”?
“WHY”: 11 FOUR KEY BENEFITS OF INTEGRATED REPORTING Lower Risk Profile: Companies which integrate sustainability into their core business lower their risk profiles, enhance brands, achieve better reputation (Mays Report. 2003). Strategic management of brand and reputation: by far the most significant driver behind non-financial reporting (NFR). Cost-efficiencies and new opportunities via better management of business’s natural, social and human capital externalities. Traditional corporate reporting is unable to effectively communicate to investors and other stakeholders how a business creates value and manages the risks it faces.
12 Global Public Policy Institute (GPPI) report analysed EIGHT most-frequently mentioned factors cited as drivers of non-financial reporting in companies. Source: GPPI, Trends in non-financial reporting, 2006 “WHY”: EIGHT DRIVERS…
Corporate Profitability & Sustainability (Q: Is it Causality or Correlation?) Sustainability Profitability Sustainable: Value-Addition to all Capitals across all Stakeholders - Positive Externalities Unsustainable: Value-added to Shareholder Financial Capital & Negative Externalities to other capitals Profitable Well-managed, Responsible, Long-term & Integrated- thinking, “Corporation 2020” Conventional, Business-as- Usual, often MNC, “Corporation 1920” Unprofitable Responsible, maybe start- ups, maybe uncompetitive Poorly-managed, reactive, uncompetitive
MANAGE WHAT YOU MEASURE… 14 Assess negative and positive externalities of business activities: first step towards generating cost-efficiencies and new opportunities via better management of natural, social and human capital externalities. Example: BP’s commitment to reduce its greenhouse-gas footprint at the time of the Kyoto Protocol netted it $630 million, when it then sold gas from its oil fields that it would have otherwise flared. Stakeholder Theory: important to engage stakeholders in long-term value creation (Andriof et al. 2002; Post et al, 2002). o Developing a long-term mutual relationship rather than simply focusing on immediate profit. o Theory argues that in order to profit and survive companies need to frequently engage with a variety of stakeholders upon whom dependence is vital. o “License-to-operate” obtained from stakeholders, not shareholders.
Sources: (1) (2) “Towards a Valuation Framework for Business Externalities”www.gistadvisory.com Unreported Financial Capital Value-addition (FCX) Human Capital Externalities (HCX) Natural Capital Externalities (NCX) Social Capital Externalities (SCX) “WHAT”: Measurin g & Valuing Impacts
PRINCIPLE: MATERIALITY 17 Valuation & Reporting must focus on material externalities. GRI Materiality Principle 1 : “The information in a report should reflect the organization’s significant economic, environmental and social impacts, or information that would substantively influence the assessments and decisions of stakeholders”. Major global initiatives for integrated reporting include Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines; country-specific National Voluntary Guidelines (NVGs) and Business Responsibility Reporting (BRR) regulations; IIRC’s Framework; Natural Capital Coalition’s “Protocol” (TBC/ end-2015) etc.
TARGETS & DRIVERS OF INTEGRATED REPORTING Business Drivers & Regulatory Interest 18
WHY INTEGRATED REPORTING? 19 Global Financial Crisis o Demonstrated the interconnectedness of global markets o Need to offer their stakeholders more than just financial information and that this information needs to be presented in a concise, clear and ‘digestible’ way. Short-Termism o Average time that US institutional investors hold stock in a particular company has fallen from seven years to seven months. o Created a distorting effect on business decision-making Technological Advances on Information Flows, Volume and Demand o New challenges for businesses as they deal with faster and vaster flows of information, inside the company and externally with stakeholders o Age of radical transparency: managing reputation and communications is increasingly paramount
DRIVERS OF INTEGRATED REPORTING 20 Business Risks o Corporations sit at the junction of finance, society and the environment. o Four out of top ten risks identified by the World Economic Forum (WEF) relate to the natural environment (Global Risks Report, 2014): Water crises Failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation Greater incidence of extreme weather events Food crises o These risks now pose an interconnected threat to the global economy and, by extension, the way we do business. International Consensus o “Risks and opportunities cannot be isolated, but need to be managed in a holistic way to foster the conditions for financial stability and growth, allied to developments in human talent and intellectual property, all within the limits of planetary boundaries and matched by a commitment to the long term stewardship of financial resources and physical assets”. ~ Christine Lagarde, IMF, 2014
REGULATORY INTEREST IN INTEGRATED REPORTING 21 South Africa o “King III” Corporate Governance Code o Support for International Framework and its intention to converge practice with the principles set out in the Framework Brazil (BM&F BOVESPA) o Encouraging businesses listed on its platform to produce an integrated report (or sustainability report) on a ‘report-or-explain’ basis Singapore o as an integral part of, “transforming Singapore into a leading global accounting hub for the Asia Pacific region by 2020”. o Steering Committee: identified five work-streams to drive forward adoption in Singapore.
22 USA o Section 313 of EPCRA established the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) o Mandatory for US facilities across identified industry sectors to report annually how much of each chemical is released and/or managed through recycling, energy recovery and treatment. o TRI creates a strong incentive for companies to improve environmental performance. India o Section 135 of the Companies Act 2013, sets a global precedence for regulatory policy, by making it mandatory for public and private companies to invest in CSR o Businesses falling under the ambit of the Act must invest 2% of its average net profits (of three preceding years) in CSR activities listed in Schedule VII of the Act o Also, businesses must report on amount spent and the impact of such spending via annual business responsibility reports (BRR) o Act seeks to bring CSR to the forefront of business decision making via “spend-disclose-or explain” mandate REGULATORY INTEREST IN INTEGRATED REPORTING
IMPACT OF REGULATION ON INTEGRATED REPORTING & BUSINESS CREDIBILITY 23 STUDY: Ioannis Ioannou and George Serafeim, (2012) ‘The consequence of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting’, by, London and Harvard Business Schools Examined the effect of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting (MCSR) on several measures of social responsibility using both country and firm-level data for 58 countries. After the adoption of appropriate laws & regulations, the social responsibility of business leaders increases and both sustainable development and employee training become a higher priority for companies. Corporate governance improves and on average, companies implement more ethical practices, bribery and corruption decrease, and managerial credibility increases. These effects are larger for countries with stronger law enforcement and more widespread assurance of sustainability reports For sample group; energy as well as waste and water consumption significantly declined & investments in employee training significantly increased Source:
24 KEY FIRST FOR GIST ADVISORY: GIST 360™ Stakeholder Performance – “3D P&L” “Pants to Poverty” – Financial P&L Turnover2,500,0002,200,000 Cost of Sales-1,500,000-1,600,000 Gross Profit1,000,000600,000 Administrative Expenses-200, ,000 Other operating Income15,0002,000 Operating profit/(loss)815,000442,000 Interest Receivable-- Interest Payable-- Profit/(loss) on ordinary activities before taxation815,000442,000 Tax on profit/(loss) on ordinary activities-285, ,700 Profit/(loss) for the financial year529,750287,300
25 KEY FIRST FOR GIST ADVISORY: GIST 360™ Stakeholder Performance – “3D P&L” EP&L (Environmental) Environmental Profits Rainwater capture, waste water reuse, mega-litres 80,000 60,000 Value of Compost created 20,000 CO2 offsets 16,000 8,000 Trees Planted 7,000 3,000 Biodiversity and water offsets - - Environmental Losses Water consumed -45, ,000 Fertiliser and Pesticides consumed - - CO2 emitted -90, ,000 Trees consumed -20,000 Toxins released -7,000 Threatened or Endangered Animals harmed - - Net Environmental Profits (Loss)-39, ,000
EXAMPLES OF LEADING COMPANY PRACTICES (Cont.) 26 Evolution of Corporate Reporting at Novo Nordisk Source: YearReport Title GRI Adherence Level Assurance Provider Annual Report 1995Environmental Report 1995-SustainAbilityOnline 1996Environmental Report 1996-SustainAbilityOnline 1997Environment & Bioethics Report 1997-SustainAbilityOnline 1998Environment & Bioethics Report 1998-Deloitte & ToucheOnline 1999Environmental & Social Report 1999-Deloitte & Touche 2000 The Novo Group Environmental and Social Report 2000 Values in a global context 1999 GuidelinesDeloitte & Touche 2001 Reporting on the triple bottom line 2001 Dealing with dilemmas 1999 GuidelinesDeloitte & TouchePDF / Online 2002Sustainability Report 2002 G2: In Accordance (GRI-checked) Deloitte & TouchePDF / Online 2003 Sustainability Report 2003 What does being there means to you? G2: In Accordance (GRI-checked) DeloittePDF / Online 2004 Annual Report 2004 Can diabetes really be defeated? G2: In Accordance (GRI-checked) PricewaterhouseCoopersPDF / Online 2005 Annual Report 2005 How Novo Nordisk is changing diabetes G2: In Accordance (GRI-checked) PricewaterhouseCoopersPDF / Online 2006 Annual Report 2006 Action defines leadership G2: In Accordance (GRI-checked) PricewaterhouseCoopersPDF / Online 2007 Annual Report 2007 United to change diabetes G3: A+ Self-declaredPricewaterhouseCoopersPDF / Online 2008 Annual Report 2008 Our focus is our strength G3: A+ Self-declaredPricewaterhouseCoopersPDF / Online
EXAMPLES OF LEADING COMPANY PRACTICES (Cont.) 27 SAP Integrated Report 2013 Concise statements describing the connections between SAP’s financial and non-financial indicators (integrated performance analysis). Highlight linkages (positive and negative) between margin and revenue, and non-financial indicators such as GHG footprint and total energy consumed. o GHG Footprint >> Revenue: positive impact on SAP’s revenue because customers increasingly ask their suppliers to act sustainably – demonstrated through environmental awards, and financial performance (measured by stock market performance) (Klassen & McLaughlin, 1996). o Renewable Energy >> Margin: purchase of renewable energy over conventional energy sources correlated with higher costs. Thus expect a small negative impact on margin when SAP augments purchase of renewable energy. o Total Energy Consumed >> Margin: reduced energy consumption is strongly correlated with a reduction in costs. Source: