Thinking about the big issues around how sustainability links into the world of finance
Narratives drive financial markets, the story we tell ourselves comes first, and we often fit the data around it. A good narrative can be better than good financials. And the same applies to sustainability. People need a story to anchor their beliefs - so maybe focusing on numbers first is wrong.
If we cannot explain how people add financial value, it's hard to get companies to adopt better human capital practices, and to get investors to take it seriously. The good news is that we have a framework, it's called Corporate Architecture - and in a way it's similar to good building design.
Our 'beliefs' frame both what information we collect on climate & sustainability challenges, and how we think about possible solutions. Sometimes these beliefs cause us to support solutions that don't work, and even worse, may never work.
What a company is worth comes from how much financial value it creates, which mostly is driven by future investments. In financial speak the most important part of this is a companies competitive advantage period (CAP). Sustainability issues are an important driver of how long this will last.
For asset managers generating financial returns for their clients is not enough. It's more important that they 'beat the index'. Which means that as well as caring about valuation, they also really care about what 'the market' thinks. This can fundamentally change their response to sustainability.
We know that 'people are our biggest asset' but how do we include this in financial investment cases? Traditional financial accounts give only part of the picture (the result), not the how & the why. A framework from Felix Oberholzer-Gee at HBS can help us think about human capital like an investor.
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'?
It's often hard to get people to worry about the long term when the short term looks fine. This bias is a real challenge in sustainability. It can not only lead us to underestimate the financial risks, it can also lead us to misunderstand them. Global agricultural production is a great example.
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.