the relationship between sustainability performance and financial performance
DESCRIPTION
At the Canadian Responsible Investment Conference, June 20, 2011, Dr. Olaf Weber gave a presentation on the relationship between sustainable development performance and financial performance, including EBITDA margin, credit risks, option pricing and rules of thumb valuation.TRANSCRIPT
The Relationship between Sustainability Performance and Financial Performance
Dr. Olaf Weber
Export Development Canada Chair in Environmental Finance, SEED, University of Waterloo
Content
• Introduction• EBITDA and Sustainability Performance• Credit Risk and Sustainability
Performance• SRI Funds and Sustainability Performance• Conclusions
Two Possible “Cause and Effect” Relations between Sustainability
Performance and Financial Performance
1. Financial performance influences sustainability performance– investing in community relations and charity
2. Sustainability performance influences financial performance– energy-efficiency measures to reduce energy
costs
3
Research Results on the Relationship between SD and Financial Performance
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
positive negative small mixed
Nu
mb
er
of
stu
die
s
MARGOLIS, J. D. & WALSH, J. P. (2001) People and Profits? The Search for a Link Between a Company´s Social and Financial Performance, Mahwah NJ, London, Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Publishers.
4
Three Kinds of Relations• Positive
– Good Sustainability performance creates successful business
• Negative– Good Sustainability performance creates less successful
business• environmental initiatives are applied poorly
• Neutral– SD performance and corporate success are independent
5
Why a Positive Effect of SD Performance on Business?
• Access to Markets/Regulatory Approvals• Customer Attraction/Retention• Address Media/Activist Pressures• Discounted Loan Rates• Reduced Insurance Premiums• Operational Efficiency• Due Diligence Regarding Partnerships/Acquisitions• Legal Due Diligence/Assurance• Employee Satisfaction/Retention/Productivity• Industry Self-Regulation• Facilitate Divestitures• SRI Funds (Retail/Institutional)
6
Why a Negative Effect of Sustainability Performance on
Business?1. higher costs
• end of pipe environmental technology
2. lower benefits• environmentally friendly products are not accepted by
consumers because of high prices
3. Sustainability performance has been poorly applied• investing in the wrong fields (offsets vs. technology)
7
• The influence of Sustainability performance is too small compared to other influences
• Sustainability performance is not perceived by the market
Why a Neutral Effect of Sustainability Performance on Business?
8
Negative and Positive Effect for Portfolios:Portfolio Theory vs. Socially Responsible
Investment (SRI)• What happens if non-sustainable companies are
excluded from the investible universe?– Positive effect: non-sustainable companies are
destined to mediocre financial performance– Negative effect: constraining the investible universe is
destined to mediocrity
• Does sustainability correlate with financial performance?
9
Milevsky, M., Aziz, A., Goss, A., Comeault, J., & Wheeler, D. (2006). Cleaning a Passive Index: How to Use Portfolio Optimization to Satisfy CSR Constraints. The Journal of Portfolio Management(Spring), 110-118.
Sustainability Performance and EBITDA Margin
• Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortisation margin (EBITDA)
• EBITDA margin is EBITDA divided by total revenue• It measures the extent to which the cash operating
expenses use up revenue
10
The Influence of Sustainability Performance onEBITDA Margin
1. Study based on ASSET4 / Thomson Reuters ESG data
2. More than 100 companies
3. Sustainability drivers
4. Sustainability outcomes
11
Weber, O., Koellner, T., Habegger, D., Steffensen, H., & Ohnemus, P. (2008). The relation between sustainability performance and financial performance of firms. Progress in Industrial Ecology, 5(3), 236-254.
Sustainability Drivers and Outcomes
• Drivers– Based on reporting– Strategies and operations to manage sustainability
performance
• Outcome– Based on quantitative measures– Positive impact on the environment or the society
• A company may have a state of the art environmental management system, but very high CO2 emissions
12
Indicators Analysed
• Environmental drivers– Materials– Energy– Water– Biodiversity– Emissions– Products and services– Compliance and expenditures
• Environmental outcomes– i.e. CO2 emissions
13
• Social drivers– Employment– Labour-management relations– Health and safety– Training and education– Diversity and opportunity– Human rights– Society– Product responsibility
• Social outcomes– i.e. community support
ModelYear 1 Year 1 Year 1-3
14
Environmental Outcomes by Sector
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
cons
umer
disc
.
cons
umer
stap
les
ener
gy
finan
cials
healt
h care
industr
ials
infor
mat
ion te
ch.
mat
erial
s
telec
om
utilit
ies
En
v. O
utc
om
es
15
Environmental Drivers and EBITDA per Sector
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
EB
ITD
A
Env. Drivers
MaterialsIndustrials
Telecom
Financials
Cons. staplesInf .tech.
Energy
Cons.disc.
Health care
Utilities
16
Environmental Outcomes and EBITDA per Sector
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
-8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
EB
ITD
A
Env. Outcome
materials
energy
utilities
cons. staples.
industrials
inf . tech.
health care
cons.disc.
f inancials
telecom
17
Environmental Drivers and EBITDA0
.2.4
.6.8
1E
BIT
DA
1 2 3 4 5 6
Environmental Drivers
0.2
.4.6
.81
EB
ITD
A
1 2 3 4 5 6
Environmental Drivers
18
Environmental Outcomes and EBITDA
0.2
.4.6
.81
EB
ITD
A
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5Env. Outcome
0.2
.4.6
.81
EB
ITD
A
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5Env. Outcome
19
Multiple Regression Models for Drivers and Outcomes
• There is a positive influence of the outcomes on EBITDA margin
199.*006.*004.*017. outcomeoutcomeoutcomema soencgEBITDA
318.*033.*024.*022. driversdriversdriversma cgsoenEBITDA
20
The Relationship between Sustainability Performance and
Financial Indicators
21
Conclusions (EBITDA)
• There is a positive relation between sustainability performance and EBITDA margin
• Generally the positive relation between sustainability outcomes and EBITDA margin is stronger than between sustainability drivers and EBITDA margin– The sustainability result counts
22
23
Default Risk…
Integrating Sustainability Indicators into Credit Risk
Management
Credit Risks and Sustainability Credit Risks
• Credit risk is the uncertainty about the future outcome of loans– Compliance with the credit agreement– Default (non-compliance with the credit
agreement as defined by Basle II)
• Sustainability Credit Risk– Uncertainty about the future outcome of loans
emerging from environmental, economic and social sustainability risks
24
Core Questions• Does a commercial debtor’s sustainability
performance affect its credit risk rating?• Does adding criteria aimed at assessing a
debtor’s sustainability performance provide added value to traditionalfinancial rating criteria?
• Ability to repay ?
• Collateral value ?
• Reputation risk ?
• Ability to repay?
• Collateral value?
• Reputation risk?
25
Sustainability Risks in Credit Business
1. Security risks of sites used as collateral that are contaminated– Contamination of a site affects the collateral value
2. Reputation risk– Banks can attract a bad reputations because of bad
reputation of a debtor3. Influences on the ability to repay the loan
– Debtors can be obliged to invest in environmental technologies because of regulations
– Changes in environmental attitudes of consumers or industries influence the business performance of a debtor
26
Credit Rating CriteriaTraditional criteria
(Cronbach’s alpha =.91) Economical Sustainability Criteria
(Cronbach’s alpha =.83) Environmental Sustainability Criteria
(Cronbach’s alpha =.76) Social Sustainability Criteria
(Cronbach’s alpha =.75) Reputation Legal capacity to borrow Competency of management Follow-up regulation Relations to the lender Potential for development Attainment of budget Dividend policy Sector Region Product and market Competition Clients Suppliers Volume of orders Future margin Agency report Credit limit Account turnover Outstanding interest and amortization Auditing company Management systems Trustee Personal securities Physical securities Liquidity ratio Return on equity Cash flow ratio Debt ratio Free Cash Flow Equity-to-fixed-assets ratio Self-financing ratio Risk of change in interest rates
Net debt service Sustained growth Quality of growth Sector development Integration of environmental aspect in economic decision making Robustness against crises Personal resources Community relations Risk of accidents Job creation Adequate firm size Eco efficiency Information and communication Material productivity Spatial relation Commuter mobility Car fleet Energy efficiency Technical update of power plants and machines Amount of waste Waste management Toxic waste Contaminated sites Technology management Material substitution Longevity Recycling capacity Redemption of used products Miniaturization of products Ecological product design Contracting
Costs of environmental measures Emissions Environmental friendly construction Consideration of nature and landscape Soil erosion Sealing of soil Sewage emission Sewage quality Air emission Noise emission Resource protection Material use Ratio of renewable resources Use of non-renewable energy sources Use of renewable energy Use of water (amount)
Wage policy Health policy Social security of the employees Workers’ participation Conservation of workplaces Flexible working conditions and working hours
27
Results
Traditional criteria
Default / non-defaultclassification by thecredit manager
?
Economic (sustainability) criteria ?
Environmental (sustainability) criteria?
Social (sustainability) criteria
?
28
Predicting Credit Risk by Traditional Rating and Sustainability Indicators
• Traditional rating (logistic regression)– Correct predictions = 81.1%– AUROC = .91
• Traditional and sustainability rating (logistic regression)
– Credit Risk = 5.10*trad.+2.14*econ. sust.+1.10*soc. sust.-1.44*env.sust.-21.87
– Correct predictions = 85.7%– AUROC = .94
29
Are Banks Integrating SD/Environmental Indicators into the
Risk Management Process?
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
ba
nk
s in
teg
rati
ng
e
nv
iro
nm
en
tal c
irte
ria
UNEP signatories other banks
30
Conclusions (Credit Risk)
• Ability to repay?• Collateral value?• Reputation risk?
• Management ?• ?• ?
Ability to repayFuture earnings
31
• Debtors may improve their credit ratings by improving their sustainability performance
• Banks may improve their credit risk prediction by integrating sustainability indicators into the risk management process
The Performance of SRI Funds in Times of Turmoil
• Is there a significant difference in the financial return between a portfolio of SRI funds and a conventional index during times of turmoil?
• Is there a relation between financial and sustainability ratings based on the past performance of funds and the return of an SRI fund portfolio in times of turmoil?
Database
• 151 SRI Equity Funds• December 2001 to June 2009• Sustainability rating• Monthly returns• MSCI World as benchmark
Source: Weber, O., Mansfeld, M., & Schirrmann, E. (2011). The Financial Performance of RI Funds After 2000. In W. Vandekerckhove, J. Leys, K. Alm, B. Scholtens, S. Signori & H. Schaefer (Eds.), Responsible Investment in Times of Turmoil (pp. 75-91). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Results: Returns between 2001 and 2009
Returns in Bull Phase
Returns in Bear Phase
Conclusions SRI Funds
• SRI Funds are able to outperform conventional benchmarks
• General market impacts influence SRI funds as well
• Sustainability rating alone does not guarantee outperformance
• The combination between sustainability rating and financial rating creates outperformance
• The use of sustainability criteria in company analyses, credit risk evaluations and asset management may create financial benefits
• Cause-effect studies are needed• From correlative studies to filtering out
those that are able to combine sustainability and financial performance
38
Conclusions
Thank you!
Dr. Olaf Weber
Associate Professor, Export Development Canada Chair in Environmental Finance
School for Environment, Enterprise and Development
University of Waterloo