All about the wider issues that come out of the sustainability transitions including human rights
We often mix up what as a society we need, with what we can afford. This is not about blocking sustainability actions. It's about identifying who needs to do what to make something actually happen. And we need to remember that not all decisions are purely financial.
Hoping that incumbent companies will change can lead to disappointment. Incremental is ok, but big changes sometimes need a new entrant. Incumbents have too much to lose. So maybe our first question should be 'will the incumbents deliver the change we want or do we need creative destruction'?
Some phrases mean different things to different people. Win/win is one of those. Even if an action can be shown to be a win for both a company and society, there are good reasons why management might still NOT act. We need to be clear about how the win will play out when we plan engagements.
We 'know' that a company's share price is determined by what happens in the future. And that this is where sustainability issues play their part, changing the likely course of the future. But how the share price responds depends on what investors are already expecting. Consensus matters.
Investors know that soft factors, such as having a happy and motivated workforce, are important drivers of a company valuation. But how do we include factors such as diversity into our investment cases? The first step is to understand the linkages. Not all soft factors are financially material.
How the financial markets have reacted to the current tariff 'war' gives us some useful insights into how the sustainability transitions might play out. Of the three main alternative scenarios we suggest only one will deliver progress. The other two would lead to negative outcomes.
Companies (and many of their shareholders) respond best to issues that impact their long term profitability. Sustainability issues are often strategic issues for companies, with clear valuation creation implications. But not all sustainability issues have financial implications.
As an investor I would rather be roughly correct than precisely wrong. Or more strictly I would rather be broadly right about the two or three things that really matter to a company, even if it meant that I got everything else wrong.
A bad company does not always make a bad investment. If we want to persuade investors that a low sustainability company is too risky, we need to understand the difference between price & value.
Most politicians follow not lead. And so we need to think less about our message, and more about if our proposal speaks to the values and aspirations of the wider population.
Financial markets exist to provide liquidity, and to enable companies to raise new financial capital. Or do they? Are they more a mechanism to generate financial returns. If so, what might this mean for sustainability.
If a CEO knows they might not be in the job for long, they might focus on short term wins over long term value creation. As shareholders we need to be vocal in our support of good investment, even if it has a long payback.