5 minute read 1 Dec 2020
Group of demonstrators on road, young people fight for climate change

Measuring stakeholder capitalism for a global approach to sustainability

By Nicola Ruane

EY Ireland, Senior Manager, Climate Change and Sustainability Services

Sustainable business advisor. UN SDGs advocate. Sustainable finance nerd. Side hustling as a Yoga teacher. Meditation every day. EY Well-being Champion.

5 minute read 1 Dec 2020

The Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism framework enables a global approach to the common metrics that companies need to track and report on to display to the market how they are creating sustainable value.

In brief
  • When organisations use different metrics to report on their non-financial performance, they cannot be compared.
  • Using the framework metrics will tell the holistic story of an organisation’s current status and show the market its prospects for future sustainability success.

At the World Economic Forum (WEF) in January 2020 the International Business Council (IBC) agreed that the purpose of business was to take account of all stakeholders, and not just shareholders. This marked the end of the mantra, ‘the business of business is business.’ Now, a collaboration between the WEF and the world’s leading management consulting firms is underway to make this initiative tangible and most importantly, measurable.

Not just another disclosure requirement

Globally, there are a raft of reporting disclosures and standards in use, but this framework is different.  Here’s why:

  • Forms the building blocks of a single, coherent global reporting framework
  • Holistic in nature, tracking issues such as employee well-being, innovation and GHG emissions
  • Leverages metrics embedded in existing mechanisms; e.g. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), Carbon Standards Disclosure Board (CSDB) and the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC)
  • Unique collaboration between the Big Four.
  • Endorsed by the IBC whose members are the largest companies in the world.
  • Enables disclosures to become universal, material and comparable. A demand laid down by investors.
  • Actionable and feasible to report on.
  • Grounded in the UN SDGs, regarded as the roadmap to achieve the long-term goals of society. 
  • Goes beyond ESG to consider prosperity and the role of business in fuelling economic growth.

The age of transparency

Designed deliberately to be industry agnostic, the framework enables comparison across companies, an ongoing challenge cited by data owners and users. When organisations use different metrics to report on their non-financial performance they cannot be compared. In time, it will become clear who the leaders and the laggards are. Using the framework metrics will tell the holistic story of an organisations current status and show the market its prospects for future success. Traditional financial reporting, whilst critical, is based on the past, a narrow indication of future success.  It needs marrying with ESG factors; for example, the approach to employee wellbeing and training, investment in innovation reducing negative environmental impacts and robust anti-corruption mechanisms.

The investor community are at the heart of this transparency demand. EY’s Institutional Investor survey found that 91% of investors are using non-financial reports as a basis for decision making. However, they are dissatisfied with the information they receive on company approaches to ESG risks and opportunities affecting their business.  Therefore, the demand for more rigour, consistency, measurability and high-quality disclosures is growing. As companies adopt the framework, investors will have the ability to compare and use this information to inform their decision making. It will increasingly become evident who is committed to improving ESG performance and who is greenwashing.

2020 has also seen the European Commission undertake a revision of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD). On the back of this, we can expect to see more stringent rules and oversight and, the potential for mandatory assurance of non-financial performance. This will make sustainability reporting even more necessary, with the stakeholder capitalism framework as the key tool for the way forward.

What needs to be measured?

The framework contains 21 core metrics, defined as critically important within an organisation’s boundaries, and 34 expanded metrics encompassing the wider value chain.  The pillars are aligned with the UN SDGs and principles of ESG. 

Principles of Governance

Planet

People

Prosperity

The definition of governance is evolving as organisations are increasingly expected to define and embed their purpose at the centre of business. But the principles of agency, accountability and stewardship continue to be vital for truly ‘good governance’.

An ambition to protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change, so that it can support the needs of present and future generations.

An ambition to end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions, and to ensure that all human beings can fulfil their potential in dignity and equality and in a healthy environment.

An ambition to ensure that all human beings can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives and that economic, social and technological progress occurs in harmony with nature.

Disclosures

Setting purpose

GHG emissions

Diversity and inclusion %

Number and rate of employment

Materiality issues impacting stakeholders

Water consumption (if material)

Pay equality %

Economic contribution

Anti-corruption

TCFD recommendations

Training provided #/$

Total R&D expenses

The issue of materiality

Materiality was debated at length through the formulation of the framework. Materiality is a standard practice for leading organisations to define what is important, relevant, and critical to long-term value creation. There are two key materiality takeaways:

Immateriality v Materiality. Taking the example of water consumption. A bank may deem water consumption immaterial if it’s not an issue where their greatest impact is. In this case, an ‘explain or disclose’ approach is advised. This concept is not new for limited companies in Ireland who already adhere to the Corporate Governance Code requiring them to ‘comply or explain’.

Pre-financial impacts should be reflected. Even if there is no or limited financial impact attached to a social or environmental issue, this now this needs to be captured. Materiality is a dynamic concept and the diminishing of social value can quickly become financial in nature, for example, loss of reputation affecting sales.

What’s next?

IBC members are being encouraged to take the lead by adopting and reporting against the framework, with ambitions to do this as soon as 2021. For all organisations, no matter where you are in your long-term value creation journey, this framework is highly relevant. We encourage you to begin to report on the core metrics to align the measurement of non-financial/ESG performance. This work will continue to evolve as the future of reporting is transformed, and as we have seen with other initiatives and standards, the trajectory moves from voluntary to regulatory. This framework will enable the market to determine who the true leaders and laggards are in creating and sustaining long-term value for society.

To read the whole report click here.

Summary

When organisations use different metrics to report on their non-financial performance they cannot be compared. In time, it will become clear who the leaders and the laggards are.

About this article

By Nicola Ruane

EY Ireland, Senior Manager, Climate Change and Sustainability Services

Sustainable business advisor. UN SDGs advocate. Sustainable finance nerd. Side hustling as a Yoga teacher. Meditation every day. EY Well-being Champion.