November 2009

Cartier goes for the gold

November 8, 2009

All too often, behind the glitter of gold are ugly environmental and social costs: Unregulated mines creating toxic wastes, child laborers working under grim conditions, rivers and bays polluted with waste. Sales of diamonds, meanwhile, have been used to finance wars in Africa. Under pressure, the jewelry industry has responded with programs to monitor the supply chains of precious metals and gems from the mine to the retailer. (Last year, in a FORTUNE story headlined Green Gold, I wrote about Wal-Mart and Tiffany’s pioneering efforts to find “sustainable gold.”) But cleaning up the mining industry is an enormous challenge, and so there are bound to be setbacks as well as gains.

Eucantera

Artisanal miner at Eurocantera

One big setback this week: A government and industry initiative set up to stop the flow of so-called conflict diamonds, known as the Kimberly Process, failed to suspend Zimbabwe even after its own investigators had found that the Zimbabwean military had organized smuggling of diamonds and assaulted other miners. According to The New York Times:

Human rights campaigners and nongovernmental organizations immediately denounced the decision, saying that the Kimberley Process had shown it was incapable of stopping gross abuses and the flouting of international standards.

Kimberly Process officials said they want to give the government a chance to come into compliance. We’ll see, but know that, for now, diamonds certified as conflict-free may be helping to finance human rights abuses in Zimbabwe.

On a more encouraging note, luxury jeweler and watch-maker Cartier is the latest retailer to look for more responsible ways to source its gold. The French-based firm recently signed an agreement to buy gold from an innovative Italian gold-mining venture based in Honduras. Globalization is a fact of life in the gold biz.

The Honduran mining venture, called Eurocantera, combines a modern alluvial gold mine (meaning that the gold is found in water, close to the surface, requiring no blasting into rock) with small-scale miners who use traditional methods of panning gold. This venture is noteworthy because it supports artisanal miners in a poor country, not only by providing them with decent wages, but by offering education in finance and technology, a free health clinic and road building that is needed to move gold to market but will provide other benefits as well to isolated villages. Put simply, it’s a well-rounded approach. [click to continue…]

{ 4 comments }

The nerd in the cabinet

November 5, 2009

Steven_Chu_official_portraitOnce a professor, always a professor.

Steven Chu, the energy secretary, winner of the Nobel Prize and former physics teacher at Berkeley, spoke tonight at a Washington fundraising dinner for Conservation International, the global NGO.

Actually, he delivered a lecture, deploying a long, detailed PowerPoint presentation, with charts and graphs explaining temperature fluctuations over decades, rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 800,000 years, changes in sea levels, payback for investments in energy efficiency, even a diagram of a new battery technology that included this caption:

Battery about to charged: Positive Mg ions and negative Sb ions are dissolved in electrolyte (green)

Battery fully charged: Mg (blue) and SB (yellow) become the anode and cathode

It was another one of those all-too-frequent moments when I wish I had taken more science classes in college. And remembered why I hadn’t.

By coincidence, Michele Obama visited the energy department earlier in the day and said:

My husband loves his Cabinet.  He was extremely excited that he had a real nerd on his team.  He talked about it for weeks on end.

It’s easy to see why the cerebral president and his brainy energy secretary would bond.

Chu wasn’t spellbinding at the CI dinner but in this city of politicians and special interest groups, with climate change legislation again on the front burner, it was actually refreshing to study a Power Point instead of being bombarded with talking points. Spin doctors marshall facts to support their arguments. Chu starts with the science and works his way from there to solutions.

He argued for three broad approaches to the climate crisis – a major commitment to energy efficiency requiring government regulations and financing, changes in forestry and agricultural practices and still-to-be-discovered breakthroughs in clean energy technology. Some highlights:

Energy efficiency: Chu said market failures – among them lack of knowledge and lack of financing – stand in the way of efficiency to commercial and industrial buildings and to homes which deliver relatively quick paybacks.

“How many University of Chicago economists does it take to change a light bulb?” he asked.

“None,” he replied. “If the light bulb needed changing, the free market would have done it.”

Calling himself “an energy conservation nut,” Chu displayed a chart showing that efficiency standards for refrigerators adopted years ago in California had reduced annual energy costs, on average, from $1272 to $462 a year. “Even though refrigerators have gone up in size, energy usage has gone down by 70%,” he said.

The simple step of painting roofs white could cut air conditioning costs by 15% in warm weather regions, he noted.

Forestry and agriculture: Together, deforestation and agriculture account for about 31% of annual greenhouse gas emissions, Chu (and his pie chart) said. “To achieve our energy and climate goals,” he said. “We’ve got to solve deforestation and change our agricultural practices.”

Some of this can be quite complicated: Rich countries, rather than cutting their own emissions, could finance alternative livelihoods for people in the tropics so they don’t cut down trees. Other ideas are simpler: If you provide poor people in the global south with solar or highly-efficient cook stoves, then they don’t have to burn as much wood to heat their homes or cook food.  An efficient stove avoidsthe equivalent of two tons of carbon emissions, about half the amount emitted by a typical car in a year.

Protecting forests is ”the least expensive way to decrease carbon emissions,” Chu said.

Technology breakthroughs: The energy department recently announced $151 million in grants for transformative technology under a program called ARPA-E, which stands for Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, and is modeled after the federal defense spending project that led to the invention of the Internet.  “We don’t have all the technologies we need,” Chu said.

Interestingly, I listened to Chu chat with several venture capitalists  just before the dinner in Union Station and he asked them how they thought his  department was doing at reviewing grant applications from startup fims. He said he had a feeling that the DOE staffers who review the grants might be too conservative and risk-averse, and that he intended to urge them to take more chances on long-shot ideas that could deliver big breakthroughs.

Only near the end of his talk did Chu revealed a bit of the passion that he brings to the topic of climate change.

The costs of enacting climate-change legislation, he said, are about 45 cents a day for a family of four.

And the cost of doing nothing?

One is that the U.S., which recently fell behind China in high-tech manufacturing, will fall even farther behind. “Very recently, China turned a corner,” he said. “China and other countries will pass us by.”

“And the other cost,” he said, “is that we will expose our children and grandchildren to unconscionable risk.”

No PowerPoint slide was required to explain that.

{ 1 comment }

A revolution in finance?

November 2, 2009

2932154987_107fa86e2bNot much good has come out of the global financial meltdown but there is this:

Investors who watched Bear Stearns, General Motors and Merrill Lynch destroy billions of dollars of shareholder value presumably are ready to focus on what makes companies sustainable, or at least try to better understand risk.

But how? How are institutional or individual investors to know which companies are built to last, which are managed to serve their customers, workers and communities, and which of their boards are fulfilling their obligation to manage risk?

Those were the questions put today before a day-long conference called Sustainable Stock Exchanges, held at UN headquarters in New York and convened by the UN Global Compact (an alliance of responsible companies), the PRI (an investor group whose initials stand for the Principles for Responsible Investment) and UNCTAD (the UN agency that promotes trade and development). The focus was on gobal stock exchanges, and the potential they have to require public companies to disclose their environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks. But we also talked about building the business case for so-called nonfinancial analysis, and about whether companies with good environmental, social and governance practices will deliver superior shareholder returns.

I was privileged to moderate much of the discussion, and so had the opportunity to hear from stock-exchange officials, investors and regulators from Egypt, South Africa, the UK, Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia and New Zealand. Living and working in the U.S., it’s easy to forget that the conversation about sustainability is also unfolding in far-flung locales that don’t often get datelines on the business pages.

“My own view is that smart companies and smart stock exchanges recognize the value of ESG in driving returns,” said Jane Diplock, a New Zealander who is chair of the International Organization of Securities Commissions, known as IOSCO. “What was a whisper in the 20th century – don’t invest in guns or tobacco – has become shout – invest to protect the planet!”

James Gifford, the executive director of PRI, described the forward-thinking corporations, investors and exchanges as an “ecosystem” in which each part contributes to the whole.  “Clearly there is a huge amount of momentum among the investors and the exchanges,” he said. “The business case (for integrating environmental, social and governance risk into investing) has been well established.”

Really? I’m not persuaded that we can make the link between the financial crisis and the need for companies to be more responsible, more aligned with society and better governed. If there is a connection, it’s probably driven—or at least it should be—by a greater skepticism among investors, a willingness to dig deeper into risk and the understanding that neither size nor short-term performance tell you what you need to know about a company.

As George Kell, executive director of the Global Compact, put it: “Short-term, quarterly profit maximization is not sufficient to build long-term value.”

Here are a few things  I learned at the event:

More than ever, companies and investors say they want to align themselves with society’s needs. The evidence for that is that the Global Compact, launched less than a decade ago with 47 companies, now has 6,000 member companies in 135 countries that promise to align their strategies around human rights, the environment, labor practices and anti-corruption principles. (Some companies actually get kicked out for non-compliance.) The PRI, which began with about 20 institutional investors in 2005, now has about 600 asset managers and their advisors as members. They promise to incorporate ESG analysis into their investment decisions and be active as owners.

But corporate disclosure of relevant ESG information remains spotty. Only about 15% of the 20,000 companies covered by Bloomberg provide sufficient data about their ESG practices, according to Paul Abberley, the chief executive of Aviva Investors, a UK-based asset manager. “The disclosure of information can be dramatically improved.” Aviva proposed at the event that stock exchganges make “good ESG disclosure a condition of listing.”

Most stock exchanges, however, are reluctant to de-list companies, around ESG issues or anything else. De-listing is a measure of last resort, as Huseyin Erkan, the chairman and CEO of the Istanbul Stock Exchange, explained. De-listing means investors can’t get access to their money, and it means the exchange loses revenues. The Istanbul exchange, rather than enforcing disclosure requirements (a stick), has set up an index (a carrot) of companies with good governance practices. It also has nine city-based stock indices, which lead cities to compete to provide good business environments and reliable reporting.

A few exchanges in the developing world are pushing hard on ESG. Egypt de-listed about 750 most-small companies from its exchange because they failed to meet good-governance requirements, leaving about 350 better-governed and better-capitalized firms. “At the end of the day, you have to do things that are unpopular,” said Maged Shawky Sourial, chairman of the exchange. The surviving companies, he said, were better equipped to come through the 2006 crash of Gulf markets and the 2008 financial crisis.

Most of the exchanges pushing ESG are in the developing world, where they are competing for risk-averse foreign investors. U.S. and Western European exchanges haven’t played much of a role in this debate.

My own belief is that, more than rules or listing requirements, the performance of ESG indexes and SRI funds that drives what is potentially a revolution in finance. If they outperform over time, more money will flow to companies with good ESG practices. “We’re talking about changing the way we value business,” says Alyson Warhurst, executive chair of Maplecroft, a firm that analyzes risk.

The financial crisis, at the least, opens up space for discussion. Antoine de Salins, who is executive director of Fonds de Reserve pour lest Retraites, a big French pension fund, said: “It is clear to me that we investors are obliged to revisit all the classical, analytical tools we were using in the past to shape our investment policies.”

After the event, I chatted with Jean-Nicolas Caprasse of RiskMetrics Group, a fast-growing advisory firm that seems to be trying to corner the market on risk analysis. They’ve acquired Institutional Shareholder Services, Innovest and, most recently, KLD Analytics—all pioneers of ESG analysis. Caprasse said that investors, in the wake of the crisis, are ready to ask a question that should provoke fresh ways of thinking about business:

What is it that we didn’t know that we didn’t know?

{ 9 comments }

The NFL’s tobacco moment

November 1, 2009

image001 If you are looking for a case study on how not to manage a corporate crisis, you could do worse than consider the way the National Football League is dealing with the mounting controversy over head injuries and their long-term impact on the health of its  players.

The league has denied the problem. It has stonewalled the press. It has ducked responsibility. It has acted arrogantly. It has come across as more concerned about the owners’ bottom line that the well-being of its players—likely because it is.

The league, it seems, has learned nothing from corporate America, where companies that are responsible and responsive, transparent and accountable do well in the long run.

I write this as an NFL fan who wrote a book about the league’s preeminent television showcase, Monday Night Football, many years ago. I’ve been following the emerging NFL head-injury scandal since blogging about it back on Super Bowl Sunday in 2007. It was clear by then–actually, long before–that the NFL didn’t take concussions seriously enough, that players were routinely sent back into games after being knocked out and, more generally, encouraged to suck it up and play hurt. My brother Noel Gunther has followed the story for years on the excellent Brainline.org website, about preventing, treating and living with traumatic brain injuries, that he runs for the public television station WETA. In fact, he tried years ago to film a story about concussions in the NFL, got permission from the Chicago Bears and its sympathetic team doctor but was then stymied by the league office–which appears to be typical of the way the NFL has responded legitimate inquiries into its conduct.

Even today–after years of accumulated evidence that concussions caused by the hard hits that are part of football have taken a long-term toll on NFL players, in the form of dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease, suicides and the like– a pamphlet that the league gives to every player about head injuries says: “Research is currently under way to determine if there are any long-term effects of concussion in N.F.L. athletes.” [click to continue…]

{ 1 comment }