IFRS Foundation Trustees announce next steps in response to broad demand for global sustainability standards (IFRS Foundation)
Important announcement on global sustainability standards:
Given the growing and urgent demand, the intention would be for the Trustees to produce a definitive proposal (including a road map with timeline) by the end of September 2021, and possibly leading to an announcement on the establishment of a sustainability standards board at the meeting of the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP26 in November 2021.
Valuing Natural Capital – A Discussion with Pavan Sukhdev (Sustainability Leaders Podcast)
In this episode, Michael Torrance speaks with Pavan Sukhdev, an internationally recognized authority on the integration of sustainability impact and natural, human and social capital into accounting and disclosure for the private sector. They discuss how natural capital is defined, different disclosure frameworks, and how companies should approach this subject.
Current Trends in ESG and Alternative Investments (ADISA)
Christopher K. Merker, Sustainable Finance Professor at Marquette University and Director at RW Baird, and Mike Underhill, CIO at Capital Innovations, discuss the latest trends in ESG and alternative investments on this webinar this week (2/24/21) hosted by ADISA, the Alternative & Direct Investment Securities Association.
https://www.adisa.org/education/adisa-2021-webinar-series
10 myths about net zero targets and carbon offsetting, busted (Climate Home News)
TCFD View of Materiality No Longer Adequate – UNEP FI Chief (ESG Investor)
Usher calls for double materiality approach in ESG investment decision making.
The materiality definition adopted by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) is insufficient in serving the battle against climate change, Eric Usher, the Head of UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI), said today.
Speaking at the Climate Risk and Green Finance Regulatory Forum, Usher explained that the TCFD was established initially by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) with the aim of ensuring financial stability, rather than climate stability.
This “exclusive focus” on systemic risk to the finance sector resulted in a “short-term outside-in approach to materiality” that would not drive real-world change, Usher suggested.
“What we need to add is inside-out leadership, focusing on the impact of financing [on] the targeted outside dimension, which aligns financing and financial portfolios with societal objectives, such as keeping the climate within 1.5 degrees of warming,” he said.
Sustainability: Who Gets to Decide? (Texas CEO)
https://texasceomagazine.com/sustainability-who-gets-to-decide/
In September of 2020, the Big Four accounting firms announced a new reporting framework for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards. The announcement captured attention because it marked a joint initiative between the four largest accounting firms, which is not an everyday occurrence.
When the World Economic Forum’s International Business Council (IBC) championed this reporting framework—in hopes that the more than 100 global companies populating the IBC would adopt the standards for 2021—the reporting framework gained momentum. However fast (or slow) this new ESG reporting framework is ultimately adopted, it will most likely impact how companies report their sustainability performance and could be a key component of the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” initiative.
Reporting standards like ESG and others raise important and fundamental questions about the nature of sustainability. Do reporting standards help achieve improved sustainability and increased innovation, or do they thwart sustainability and stifle innovation by creating uniformity and ease for those reporting and reviewing? How do we know what “good” sustainability performance is? Is it possible for a company or a nation to effectively measure progress toward sustainability? Are the best intentions of companies moving us toward a more sustainable world, or could they be a catalyst moving us further away from such a world? How will we know?
Ethics, Earnings, ERISA and the Biden Administration (Albert Feuer)
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3773879
Abstract
Ethical-factor investing shall be defined as using ethics, such as an enterprise’s policies regarding social/economic/health/environmental justice, sustainability, climate change, or corporate governance, as a factor to determine whether to acquire, dispose of, or how to exercise ownership rights in an equity or debt interest in a business enterprise.
Ethical-factor investing includes, but is not limited to the ESG, sustainable, socially responsible, impact, and faith-based investing. Ethical-factor investing may. but need not, be intended to enhance the investor’s financial performance. Ethical-factor investing also may, but need not, be intended to enhance an enterprise’s ethical behavior, i.e., to be socially beneficial.
The Trump administration discouraged ethical-factor investing. Nevertheless, such investing is becoming increasingly popular among Americans, American mutual funds, and American retirement plans.
The article introduces the current types of ethical investing, their history, their financial and ethical performance, and their pre-Biblical progenitors. All those issues are discussed more extensively in a longer referenced article.
This article suggests how the Biden Administration may encourage ethical-factor investing by ERISA retirement plan fiduciaries. This may be done with revised ERISA regulations and other interpretative documents. No ERISA amendments would be needed. ERISA permits such investing if it does not adversely affect the expected financial performance of such plans’ investment portfolios or investment choices. Finally, such plans investors, including plan participants and beneficiaries, may thereby generate their preferred benefits for society. Such benefits are, like desired financial benefits, most likely to be achieved if such investors are explicit about their preferred benefits and they regularly monitor the performance of their investments.
The Global Risks Report 2021 (World Economic Forum)
Synopsis: In 2006, the Global Risks Report sounded the alarm on pandemics and other health-related risks. That year, the report warned that a “lethal flu, its spread facilitated by global travel patterns and uncontained by insufficient warning mechanisms, would present an acute threat.” Impacts would include “severe impairment of travel, tourism and other service industries, as well as manufacturing and retail supply chains” while “global trade, investor risk appetites and consumption demand” could see longer-term harms. A year later, the report presented a pandemic scenario that illustrated, among other effects, the amplifying role of “infodemics” in exacerbating the core risk. Subsequent editions have stressed the need for global collaboration in the face of antimicrobial resistance (8th edition, 2013), the Ebola crisis (11th edition, 2016), biological threats (14thedition, 2019), and overstretched health systems (15thedition, 2020), among other topics.
The immediate human and economic cost of COVID-19 is severe. It threatens to scale back years of progress on reducing poverty and inequality and to further weaken social cohesion and global cooperation. Job losses, a widening digital divide, disrupted social interactions, and abrupt shifts in markets could lead to dire consequences and lost opportunities for large parts of the global population. The ramifications—in the form of social unrest, political fragmentation and geopolitical tensions—will shape the effectiveness of our responses to the other key threats of the next decade: cyberattacks, weapons of mass destruction and, most notably, climate change.In the Global Risks Report 2021, we share the results of the latest Global Risks Perception Survey (GRPS), followed by analysis of growing social, economic and industrial divisions, their interconnections, and their implications on our ability to resolve major global risks requiring societal cohesion and global cooperation. We conclude the report with proposals for enhancing resilience, drawing from the lessons of the pandemic as well as historical risk analysis. The key findings of the survey and the analysis are included below.
During Biden Administration, SEC will require Climate Change Risk and ESG Disclosure (Mintz)
Public companies will be required to disclose climate risks and greenhouse gas emissions under President-elect Biden’s administration. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will institute rulemaking and guidance on the federal monitoring of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. The Biden administration’s decision to require climate report disclosures follows complaints from investor advocacy groups about inconsistent disclosure practices due to voluntary reporting frameworks.