Are companies that actively manage their environmental impacts worth more?

Waste heat is invisible to the naked eye but costly.

In short – yes.  They’re worth more money than those that don’t.  Regardless of your feelings about the environment, as long as you care about money, then you should be more willing to invest it in a firm that manages its impacts.

Some of you will say that of course, that’s because such companies know about regulations and meet them, so they face lower risk of fines or emergency costs.  That is certainly true, but it is not the main reason such companies are worth more.  Even without any fines or emergencies, those companies are likely to grow faster than their peers.

This is the finding of a recent piece of research from academics at the University of California.  They don’t look at why this would be so, but they do demonstrate that it works.  Companies that disclose their emissions aren’t just being “good citizens”, they’re also doing smart business.

In fact, there are two likely reasons for this – and both point to a conclusion that managing your environmental impacts will boost the value of your business. 

First, the group is self-selecting.  Those that benefit from reporting will do so.  That means the reports will almost always come from those companies that a) measure their impacts already, so there’s little extra cost in reporting, and that also b) will suffer no great embarrassment – in particular, it will be those for whom impacts are falling, or rising slower than the business as a whole is growing.

Second, the old saying “what gets measured, gets managed” is true, and this is especially true for cost areas like energy and materials.  Business leaders hate seeing cost per unit of output go up, because it means that they either need to accept less profit or charge more money.  When impacts are reported, they are usually directly connected to the use of resources – for example Greenhouse Gas Emissions relate to the use of fuel and power.  If the measures of consumption per unit of output go down, it’s good news – but no one will be working hard on the process of making that happen if there is no one measuring the result.

Should your firm report its emissions, or other environmental impacts?  My view is that this is the wrong question.  Yes, the research showed that this was associated with growth and value, but in my view it is not the reporting itself that generated this – it is the act of measuring impacts and thinking about cost-effectiveness that led to these firms outperforming the markets.  Because they were in a position to manage their costs down, they thrived.  Companies that measure their impacts will manage them better.  Managing impacts drives company value.  The reporting was just a signal to the market.

Would you like to explore how managing your firm's impacts could boost your growth and increase value?  Contact Julia at julia@jlsbm.co.uk, or (07766) 333864.

Durban makes adaptation a priority for business

The Durban Platform agreement on climate change has been welcomed, if only because expectations were so low.  Of course, it is just an agreement to agree something by 2015, and to do whatever is agreed by 2020.  But is this just a bit of political positioning, or does it hold important messages for businesses in the UK?

Floods in Thailand wreaked havoc on supply chains

Durban is an important “heads up” for businesses all over the world.  Some countries not previously committed to emissions reductions under Kyoto have now said they will definitely agree something in the next few years – including China, the world’sbiggest emitter.  For energy-intensive businesses competing head on with companies in developing countries, this may be good news.   For those firms in countries that will now have to commit, it may sound worrying.  However reducing energy intensity is good business – and because the change is some way off, those companies have an excellent opportunity to invest thoughtfully now, save money, and be ready for 2020.

In Europe, emissions are already regulated, and governments are using grants, taxes, and other powers to encourage industries to become more efficient.  Does this mean that there will be no particular change for firms in the UK and on the continent?

The biggest news for companies here (and big-ish news for firms everywhere) is that global emissions are likely to keep rising for some time.  A view from a growing number of experts suggests that this means we might face a narrower set of options by 2020: either to cut emissions much more dramatically than if we started now, and at enormous cost, or to risk temperature increases of greater than 2C.

On the assumption that the world will not opt for dramatic, extremely expensive emissions cuts, firms face an imperative to work now on adaptation, even though the exact impacts of 2C+ warming, and their timings, are still uncertain.  There are a number of tactics companies will be pursuing to mitigate the risk of more frequent extreme weather events and their impacts.  For example, some will relocate facilities away from areas at risk of floods and hurricanes.  Others may invest further in back-up solutions to deal with everything from power failures, to transport shut-downs, to extensive supply chain disruptions.

If your firm has an emergency planning process, now is the time to make sure it covers all the predicted impacts of climate change for your region, with an understanding of the potential severity and likely timescales involved.  If you have no such process, it is more urgent than ever that you get started.  Adaptation to an environment of growing risks is now a clear priority for business.

The Anthropocene

We had got used to being insignificant.  Copernicus showed that we were not at the centre of the universe.  Darwin found an explanation for the variety of species that did not involve them being created for our benefit.  But just as we had got used to being unimportant, it turns out that things are changing.  The Economist is amongst the latest to note the view that we are living in the Anthropocene age – a geological time in which the development of life on earth is dominated by mankind.

This change of perspective reflects our increasing recognition of the impact we have on our planet.  As individuals, our impact is normally insignificant, but as the number of our species has grown and our individual impacts have increased, these multipliers have added up to an unimaginable impact on the planet’s ecosystems.

As we wait for legislation, the markets, or scientific innovators to solve the problem for us, the costs are beginning to mount.  Insurance costs are on the rise.  Speculators, investors and consumers drive up commodity prices in ways that are proving hard to predict.  It is difficult to know what to do in the face of such uncertainty and change.  However, standing still looks like a poor strategy.  Businesses need to be flexible, to learn and to adapt continually.

The traditional approach to learning is to rely on experts.  Unfortunately, in times of rapid change, experts have only a part of the picture.  What is most needed are experimenters – people who can combine thinking about what is known with speculation, turning it into testable hypotheses.  They will then run fast, inexpensive experiments to inform business decisions.  How do you know whether these experiments lead to success or failure?  As Columbia professor Rita Gunther McGrath observes, you don’t – so you need your experimenters to be expert in learning from all outcomes – including failures.

The current crop of entrepreneurs is doing exactly this.  As sustainability author Andrew Winston has blogged for HBR, both new business leaders and venture capitalists are making bets on businesses that solve sustainability problems.  These aren’t first-time-right ventures, but resilient enterprises that have kept going until they found a solution.  For example, third place winner PK Clean has based its business on technologies that are the fallout from many inventions and innovations tested and redesigned over decades.

But how do we decide what sorts of experiment to run?  The answer comes from a good understanding of the organisation’s impacts and vulnerabilities.  Your experiments will aim to reduce these.  From this point of view, the experts are not the external change consultants, but your internal experts who know full well what your firm does to the environment (even if they don’t know how much), and who have a pretty good idea of your firm’s critical needs – those things you cannot do business without.

The key factor for success is straightforward: manage your changes as experiments, not just “pilot projects”.  In other words, the aim should be not to “prove” that they are a success, but to evaluate them critically and learn from the results.

We humans are coming to dominate our planet in a way we did not anticipate.  The coming decades will favour those firms that acknowledge this, and deal with the changing environment with ingenuity and open-mindedness.  The winners will accept that the answers may not yet be “out there” – they’ll use sound methodologies to find the answers that really work... if only until the next change.