Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 74

Unseen environmental costs of companies

In 2010, Puma pioneered a new form of corporate reporting. The company produced an Environmental Profit and Loss account, which estimated the company and its supply chain to have caused €145 million of environmental damage that year, relative to €202 million net profit. In other words, if Puma expensed the costs to the environment of its activities and those of its suppliers, earnings would fall by over two thirds.

Conventional bookkeeping allows companies to ignore such damage. The activities of Puma’s supply chain involve myriad environmental and social costs, for instance through chemical pollution of waterways via the dumping of untreated wastewater. But because these costs are imposed on outside parties, and therefore fall outside the scope of suppliers’ P&Ls, there is no obligation to quantify or expense them. Instead they go unrecorded and, one way or another, are borne by the rest of us.

This is what economists call market failure. Firms are not forced to pay their full costs, leading to socially inefficient outcomes. The results are all-too apparent. In China, the global centre for textile production, the government acknowledges that nearly half its rivers are so contaminated with hazardous chemicals as to be ‘unsuitable for human contact’; Greenpeace estimates the proportion is much higher. In a country where 70% of people rely on groundwater for drinking water, of which 90% is polluted, the health outcomes are devastating.

Evidence suggests that Puma and its supply chain are not unusual in this regard. The activities of the largest 3000 public companies globally are estimated to cause environmental damage equal to 50% of combined earnings. The scale of private sector externalities demands we stop ignoring them in how companies report on their operations.

The same fundamental issue is triggering a parallel debate at a macroeconomic level. National accounting centred on GDP captures everything “except that which makes life worthwhile” [Bobby Kennedy, 1968]. Chinese GDP includes the output of the factories polluting into rivers, the necessary clean-up projects and the medical expenses of the villagers poisoned by lead, mercury and arsenic. It ignores the associated loss of life, livelihoods and ecological vitality.

The patent absurdity of using this as a guide to public policy has led to the formation of a number of alternative, broader conceptions of progress. Such ideas are slowly seeping into public discourse and policy formation around the world.

Chinese agencies, for instance, attempted to calculate a ‘Green GDP’. Despite the results ultimately being blocked by the government, the idea survives. Chinese public policy is slowly reorienting to pursue ‘balanced growth’. Pilot emissions trading schemes are in place, 74 cities have been forced to publish real-time air quality data and companies in polluting industries made to procure compulsory insurance to ensure they can provide compensation to victims for the damage they inflict.

In China and elsewhere, political and regulatory threats to business as usual are rising. Privatisation of profits and socialisation of costs is increasingly unacceptable to the public and the principle of ‘polluter pays’ has gained widespread policy acceptance, in theory if not yet in practice.

The consequence is that the ability of the private sector to externalise costs is waning. Companies in numerous jurisdictions are already forced to pay for the most obvious aspects of their environmental damage through carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes, as well as emissions charges. To combat the threat they pose to public health, tobacco and alcohol producers and retailers are being regulated more onerously. In future, such state intervention is likely to broaden in scope and deepen in nature, be it to expand emissions schemes to more sectors and pollutants, or to target excessive fat, salt and sugar content through taxes, caps or greater restrictions on advertising and selling practices.

These threats present clear business risks to a very wide range of companies and industries. Executives and investors need to consider these not as ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) concerns or a part of some vague concept of Corporate Social Responsibility, but as core business and investment issues. Corporates ought to act pre-emptively to mitigate these risks by managing and reducing external costs wherever possible, and long-term investors ought to encourage and demand they do so. Not doing so means running the risk of losing long-term social licenses to operate.

Quantifying external costs is a powerful step in this direction. Puma’s 2010 Environmental P&L is the first step of three that will attempt to incorporate the environmental, social and economic impacts of the company and its supply chain. The final version should represent a pioneering set of Full Cost Accounts which allow managers within the firm to identify risks, audit the supply chain and take remedial action. Putting a monetary value on external costs is particularly useful, since this allows companies to incorporate thinking about how to alleviate them directly into existing financial and operational systems.

Momentum is gathering behind such initiatives. A dozen companies are reported to be joining Puma in publishing ‘EP&Ls’ and creating an industry coalition to push for broader adoption. More widespread disclosure should be welcomed and encouraged by long-term investors attempting to identify businesses that are well-positioned for coming challenges.

Jack McGinn is an Analyst with First State Stewart, part of Colonial First State Global Asset Management, specialising in Asia Pacific, Global Emerging Markets and Global Equities funds. This article is general in nature and readers should seek their own advice before making any financial decisions.


 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Not so plastic fantastic: solving the single-use pandemic

Investment learnings from the COVID-19 crisis

The green lining of COVID-19: a time for change

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Unexpected results in our retirement income survey

Who knew? With some surprise results, the Government is on unexpected firm ground in asking people to draw on all their assets in retirement, although the comments show what feisty and informed readers we have.

Three all-time best tables for every adviser and investor

It's a remarkable statistic. In any year since 1875, if you had invested in the Australian stock index, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods.

The looming excess of housing and why prices will fall

Never stand between Australian households and an uncapped government programme with $3 billion in ‘free money’ to build or renovate their homes. But excess supply is coming with an absence of net migration.

Five stocks that have worked well in our portfolios

Picking macro trends is difficult. What may seem logical and compelling one minute may completely change a few months later. There are better rewards from focussing on identifying the best companies at good prices.

Six COVID opportunist stocks prospering in adversity

Some high-quality companies have emerged even stronger since the onset of COVID and are well placed for outperformance. We call these the ‘COVID Opportunists’ as they are now dominating their specific sectors.

Let's make this clear again ... franking credits are fair

Critics of franking credits are missing the main point. The taxable income of shareholders/taxpayers must also include the company tax previously paid to the ATO before the dividend was distributed. It is fair.

Latest Updates

Retirement

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

Interviews

Sean Fenton on marching to your own investment tune

Is it more difficult to find stocks to short in a rising market? What impact has central bank dominance had over stock selection? How do you combine income and growth in a portfolio? Where are the opportunities?

Compliance

D’oh! DDO rules turn some funds into a punching bag

The Design and Distribution Obligations (DDO) come into effect in two weeks. They will change the way banks promote products, force some small funds to close to new members and push issues into the listed space.

Shares

Dividends, disruption and star performers in FY21 wrap

Company results in FY21 were generally good with some standout results from those thriving in tough conditions. We highlight the companies that delivered some of the best results and our future  expectations.

Fixed interest

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Investment strategies

Seven factors driving growth in Managed Accounts

As Managed Accounts surge through $100 billion for the first time, the line between retail, wholesale and institutional capabilities and portfolios continues to blur. Lower costs help with best interest duties.

Retirement

Reader Survey: home values in age pension asset test

Read our article on the family home in the age pension test, with the RBA Governor putting the onus on social security to address house prices and the OECD calling out wealthy pensioners. What is your view?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.