|
|
Two surveys were recently published on the relevance and use of CSR information in investment decisions with poorly compatible results. It seems that the case is not closed. The first study that we will analyze is the one commissioned by Accounting for Sustainability and the GRI , The value of extrafinancial disclosure: What investors and analysts said , two institutions that promote sustainability reports that obviously concludes that non-financial information is considered relevant by analysts of investment.It is based on a survey of 35 analysts and 34 investors (68% of the sample is considered part of the Socially Responsible Investment market, SRI , and the rest are traditional). But what is interesting about this study is not that it concludes that non-financial information (ESG, environmental, social and governance, but they also add human and intellectual capital) is considered relevant, which is once again one of those questions in surveys that They have an obvious answer.
The non-obvious question would have been how you Phone Number List use that information and what impact it has on your decisions. What is interesting about this study is the contrast in the type of information that is considered most relevant and what this represents for the CSR strategies of companies that want to enter the SRI market . 80% of respondents consider this ESG information to be relevant or very relevant (only 80%?!) , the same number who believe integrated reporting will benefit their evaluations. But there are differences in the type of information. 64% say it for information on natural resources (maybe they mean “environmental issues”?), but only 52% consider it for information on social and community aspects. 100% consider it for information on corporate governance. The bias or preference of G over A and S is overwhelming. The A and S must compete with the G in the minds of investors and analysts. 61% consider it difficult to compare information on social aspects between companies , while only 41% say so for environmental information and only 3% say so for financial information. This shows not only that analysts and investors are specialists in financial information (surprise!!) but that they believe that environmental information is more standardized (resource consumption, recycling, emissions, renewable energy, etc.) than social information.
These results demonstrate the need to process and facilitate the interpretation of social and environmental information for analysts and investors, if you want them to use it (“you have to give them the peeled potato”). For financial information they will make efforts to search for and interpret it, for social and environmental information, much of the effort falls on the companies. We commented in a previous article Financial markets must allocate resources to sustainable companies about the importance of companies having a proactive attitude in attracting interest from responsible investors. Only 38% respond that the assurance of non-financial information is important or very important, but 88% say so for financial information. This reflects the lack of confidence in the assurances of sustainability reports. Would you consider the financial information if it did not have an external audit? The GRI sees the results as evidence of the importance of its work defining comparable indicators. Clearly, comparability would give analysts confidence, but we must remember that comparability is a means and that we must first determine what is relevant to the analysis.
|
|
发表于 2024-3-7 13:54:37