Where Values Meet Value: Exploring the Synergy Between ESG and Islamic Banking

Photo courtesy of Freepik, for illustration purposes only

 

Introduction: Beyond Profits — Rethinking What Really Matters in Finance

Let’s face it — the world of business and finance isn’t what it used to be. For decades, the default yardstick for success was profitability. But today, a growing number of investors, regulators, and even consumers are asking bigger questions: What kind of impact is this company making? How does it treat people? Is it helping or hurting the planet?

This is where ESG — short for Environmental, Social, and Governance — enters the conversation. It’s more than a buzzword or reporting requirement. ESG is quickly becoming a central lens through which financial decisions are made. Banks, asset managers, and insurers are embedding ESG thinking into the very DNA of their strategies — not just because it’s trendy, but because it’s good risk management and good business.

Interestingly, many of the principles at the heart of ESG aren’t exactly new. In fact, Islamic finance has been championing ethical, responsible, and inclusive financial practices for centuries. Its values-based framework — grounded in fairness, transparency, and community wellbeing — aligns surprisingly well with the modern ESG agenda.

So, how do these two frameworks complement each other? And what happens when you bring them together in practice? Let’s dig in.

 

ESG and Islamic Banking: Different Origins, Shared Principles

While ESG might have gotten its official start in a 2004 UN Global Compact report, its essence has been influencing investment behavior for decades. The basic idea is simple: businesses shouldn’t just be financially successful — they should also do right by people and the planet.

• Environmental (E): How a company impacts natural ecosystems — think emissions, resource use, pollution, climate resilience.
• Social (S): How a company treats its employees, customers, and communities.
• Governance (G): How it’s managed — including leadership, accountability, transparency, and ethical practices.

Now, compare this with the core goals of Islamic finance. It operates under the principles of Maqasid al-Shari’ah, which are essentially the higher objectives of Islamic law. These include the protection of life, intellect, faith, family, and wealth — all geared toward a just and harmonious society. Islamic finance prohibits speculation, interest (riba), and investments in industries considered harmful (like gambling or alcohol). Instead, it promotes real economic activity and shared prosperity.

In short, both ESG and Islamic banking frameworks are rooted in accountability, stewardship, and long-term thinking. They're both about balancing profit with purpose.

 

Malaysia Leading the Way: Regulation Meets Innovation

Malaysia is a great example of how this ESG-Islamic finance crossover is playing out in real time. The country isn’t just talking the talk — it’s backing it with solid regulatory moves and financial innovation:

• Bursa Malaysia launched a Sustainability Framework as far back as 2015, nudging listed companies to improve ESG disclosures.
• The Securities Commission rolled out an SRI (Sustainable and Responsible Investment) Roadmap to guide the market.
• Bank Negara Malaysia now expects that by 2026, at least 50% of bank financing should be aligned with climate-friendly or transitional initiatives.

This kind of policy push has created a fertile ground for Islamic financial institutions to lead the way in ESG-aligned products — from sustainable sukuk to green Islamic funds.

 

Sukuk & ESG: Financing with a Conscience

Here’s where theory meets the real world. One of the most exciting meeting points between ESG and Islamic finance is the sukuk market. Sukuk, sometimes called Islamic bonds (though they’re a bit more complex than that), are Shari’ah-compliant financial instruments based on asset ownership and profit-sharing.

Because sukuk are grounded in real assets and ethical use of proceeds, they naturally lend themselves to sustainability-linked financing. In fact, Malaysia issued the world’s first green SRI sukuk back in 2017 — aimed at financing solar photovoltaic plants. Since then, we’ve seen a wave of ESG-themed sukuk from both corporate and sovereign issuers in Malaysia, Indonesia, and beyond.

These instruments are giving investors something powerful: the opportunity to generate returns while supporting clean energy, infrastructure, and community development — all within the ethical guardrails of Shari’ah.

 

Impact Investing: ESG and Islamic Finance Playing on the Same Team

Another space where ESG and Islamic banking make a great team? Impact investing — where financial returns go hand-in-hand with measurable social or environmental outcomes.

The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) defines impact investing with four characteristics: intentional impact, evidence-based design, performance management, and transparency. Sound familiar? That’s because Islamic finance is already doing a version of this, guided by principles of justice, tangible asset-backing, and social good.

Islamic finance avoids harmful industries, focuses on long-term partnerships, and insists on transparency — all of which align beautifully with ESG’s focus on responsible investing. Investors are increasingly applying ESG filters to understand the real-world outcomes of their investments — carbon emissions avoided, jobs created, communities served — and Islamic finance can add another layer of ethical rigor to that process.

 

Making It Work: Reporting, Trust, and Innovation

To make this synergy truly impactful, we need more than good intentions. Transparency, standardisation, and trust are key. That means:

• Clear disclosures on Shari’ah-compliant assets and ESG criteria.
• Robust ESG reporting standards, like those from the ISSB or the SC’s SRI Taxonomy.
• Third-party audits and consistent impact measurement to give investors confidence.

And of course, innovation plays a big role too. Fintech, blockchain, and digital platforms can help Islamic finance leapfrog into the ESG era — offering better traceability, smarter contracts, and more inclusive access to capital.

 

Conclusion: A Shared Future for Ethical Finance

At a time when the world is craving more responsible and inclusive financial models, the convergence of ESG and Islamic finance feels both natural and necessary.

Both frameworks remind us that finance isn’t just about numbers — it’s about values, communities, and the future of our planet. They push back against short-termism and encourage us to think long-term, act ethically, and invest in things that matter.

The rise of Shari’ah-compliant ESG products — from green sukuk to impact funds — isn’t just a passing trend. It’s part of a larger shift toward a more grounded, principled form of finance. And as more investors, regulators, and institutions embrace this intersection, we have a real shot at building a financial system that is not only profitable — but also just, sustainable, and truly meaningful.

All views and opinions expressed on this site are by the author and do not represent any particular entity or organisation 

Read more →

Unlocking the Power of ‘S’ in ESG: How Companies Can Drive Real Social Impact

 

Photo courtesy of Freepik, for illustration purposes only

Introduction

As environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing continues to soar—projected to rise 84% to $34 trillion by 2026, according to PwC—so too do the questions surrounding the true impact and value of ESG strategies, particularly from consumers, private companies and even political figures.

Yet, ESG-focused investors and companies remain steadfast. " Belying questions of whether financial and ESG performance might conflict, nine of 10 asset managers surveyed believe that integrating ESG into their investment strategy will improve overall returns " PwC reports.

The Business Roundtable, representing 250 of the top U.S. CEOs, echoes this sentiment. “Companies should serve not only their shareholders, but also deliver value to their customers, invest in employees, deal fairly with suppliers, and support the communities in which they operate,” its Purpose of a Corporation states.

However, the "S" in ESG, representing a company's social responsibility, remains unfairly scrutinised, as its measurement and value are often subjective. Unlike the "E," which is quantifiable through carbon emissions, energy consumption, and waste output, amongst others —and guided by the International Financial Stability Board's standardised climate-related reporting frameworks. The "G" is generally regulated by strict reporting standards enforced by the regulators and other authorities.

But when it comes to social impact, the lack of clear reporting standards for the "S" gives companies greater flexibility in how they report their contributions to society. While this freedom allows for creative approaches, it also leaves companies vulnerable to criticism for making unsubstantiated claims or focusing more on brand image than real change. As a result, they risk losing the trust of both employees and consumers when their actions fail to live up to their values.

Companies can significantly strengthen the "S" in their ESG strategies through five transformative actions:

1.       Clearly define your purpose and impact through your business

Every company has the power to drive a more equitable society by leveraging the products and services they already offer. Telco companies are closing the broadband access divide. Banks and property developers are addressing the homeownership gap. Healthcare is delivering essential medical services to vulnerable communities in need.

Tech companies that support food banks are doing valuable work. However, an even more powerful approach is to address the root cause by helping individuals secure tech jobs through training. By empowering people with the skills for higher-paying, more stable careers, we can reduce reliance on food banks and create lasting economic mobility.

  

2.       Understand and focus on the metrics

Peter Drucker's timeless principle, "What gets measured, gets managed," has stood for over 70 years. In today's data-driven world, the ability to collect and analyze information to guide business operations and assess outcomes is not only more accessible but also expected.

However, measuring social good remains a challenging endeavor, making it difficult to manage. Nonetheless, it is achievable when companies take a structured approach—clearly defining objectives, setting goals, tracking progress, and reporting on their social impact commitments.

For example, it’s not just about the amount of corporate funding allocated; rather, it’s about the measurable societal impact—specifically, the people and communities that are positively affected. This becomes more manageable when nonprofit organizations embrace return-on-investment (ROI) principles and offer transparency in their results, enabling donor companies to meet their own ROI expectations.

 

3.       Begin with your internal foundation – social impact starts with your people

Establish clear and measurable DEI objectives, along with employee engagement metrics, particularly for historically marginalized and underrepresented groups. It is crucial to remain steadfast in pursuing DEI initiatives, even amidst economic fluctuations.

Additionally, integrate Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) efforts with corporate social responsibility (CSR) functions, corporate giving, and employee volunteer programs. Too often, these areas operate in silos, work at cross purposes, send conflicting messages, and waste valuable resources. Leverage employee passion for your mission by offering volunteer and giving opportunities that reinforce your ESG objectives, while setting ambitious, measurable goals.

While the social value of DEI is widely discussed, the business case is often overlooked. However, some organizations such as Wall Street increasingly seeks partnerships with women- and minority-owned banks, not solely for DEI purposes, but to enhance their ability to raise capital. This shift highlights the growing recognition of the business benefits DEI can provide.

  

4. Reach out and connect

Identify, engage, and prioritize partnerships with corporate partners, vendors, and supply chain providers to collaboratively achieve social good objectives, creating a powerful force-multiplier effect. Leverage your purchasing power to encourage others to join in these efforts.

When companies focus on social-good initiatives aimed at closing gender or racial disparities, they simultaneously open new market opportunities. While the social benefits are often emphasized, the business advantages are frequently overlooked.

For example, a leading financial institution actively seeks business with minority securities dealers, not merely to advance DEI objectives, but to tap into, serve, and capitalize on previously underserved markets.

 

4.       Extend partnerships

Nonprofits are uniquely positioned to help you achieve measurable social goals. As frontline agents of social good, they are deeply attuned to the immediate and evolving needs of communities.

While donating to large national and global nonprofits is a reliable approach, supporting local community-based organizations—who are closer to the ground and better informed about what works—can significantly amplify the impact of your social investment.

Additionally, consider contributing to the development and strengthening of a community nonprofit’s operational infrastructure. By providing "unrestricted" funds, you empower these organizations to allocate resources where they are most needed, allowing expert leaders to decide how best to use your generosity.

 

Conclusion

By refining the "S" in ESG with a strategic business mindset, you can help demonstrate that social good is not only a moral imperative but also a sound business practice, one that benefits both investors and the broader public.

 

All views and opinions expressed on this site are by the author and do not represent any particular entity or organisation 

 

Read more →

Sustainable Procurement: Is it worth pursuing?

 

Photo courtesy of Freepik, for illustration purposes only

Introduction

In recent years, with issues such as COVID-19 and with the current volatile market, the resilience of supply chain is deemed more critical than ever. Companies have started to integrate Sustainability into its operations but the focus now is to ensure it is expanded across its value chain or in other words; procurement.

 

Sourcing from suppliers that are sustainable, may help companies to mitigate risks arising from supply disruptions due to environmental events or regulatory changes. Moreover, companies that mitigate social and environmental issues across the value chain will help to mitigate reputational risks.

 

It easier said than done

Integrating Sustainability across the value chain requires a lot of collaborative approach and sound governance and processes – and this is also complex as companies are dealing with shortages in tools, data and internal capabilities. This is backed by the findings from a study by McKinsey. According to this study, one of the exercises indicates that, 70% of the sample informed that their companies is not aware of where Scope 3 emissions were generated in their value chain. Apart from that, 90% of the sample highlighted that they face difficulty in identifying the right actions to move the needle on ESG topics. Also, in terms of target setting, almost 75% highlighted that they face issues in this area.

 

The SMEs are the backbone of the economy – globally they represent up to 90% of businesses. The SMEs are also facing the scrutiny and pressure from all angles to adopt sustainable practices and operations. This is due to their supply chain ecosystem that includes large corporations that are setting higher ESG standards and requirements.

 

Logically, implementing sustainability is always a good cause for any organisation, regardless of their size. While larger corporations have been able to progressively integrate ESG into their business, many SMEs struggle in their journey to do the same, due to a lack of technical skills, knowledge and capital.

 

 Is it worth it?

Not only sustainable procurement results in good reputation for the company, but it can also have a positive impact on the company’s relations with its stakeholders, especially the customers and investors. These two stakeholder groups are now more focus than ever to scrutinise ESG considerations integrated across companies’ supply chain and will support those companies that have a clear and practical sustainable procurement plan and monitoring. Customers and investors would also be more likely to do business (over a longer period of time) with companies which have lower exposure towards non-ESG compliant suppliers.

 

Current and potential employees are also looking into how serious companies are towards sustainable procurement, especially those that value environmental and social responsibility. Employees nowadays do not want to be affiliated with companies with poor sustainability practices in its procurement process and management. Additionally, employees would also expect companies they are working for to also have a sound and robust sustainable procurement strategy and plan.

 

Sustainable procurement is not all just about environmental and social benefits, but can also have potential economic value. Companies with good sustainable procurement practices will have competitive edge, and can reduce costs, improve efficiency, and gain a competitive advantage over their peers in the same sector.

 

On top of that, sustainable procurement would also improve supplier relations as well as business continuity. Early adoption and transition in sustainable practices ahead of mandatory regulations or imposed by specific jurisdictions, can benefit organisations in securing and building networks of quality and sustainable suppliers as part of its value chain.

 

Conclusion

Sustainable procurement is expected to be a norm moving forward. We are seeing more pressure from sustainable companies to embed Sustainability across its business operations. Engagement with suppliers on Sustainability are seen to be intensified and more and more suppliers are also on the look out to obtain relevant certifications, tools and resources towards being more sustainable. More or less, both organisations and suppliers are aware that sustainable procurement will bring economic benefits and would remain relevant and competitive in the market over the long term.

 

All views and opinions expressed on this site are by the author and do not represent any particular entity or organisation 

Read more →

Why is it Difficult to Develop Better ESG Case Studies?

Photo courtesy of Pexels, for illustration purposes only

Introduction

Does Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) management bring financial returns to companies? That is the common question that from companies when they are encouraged to go beyond reporting compliances.

Whenever companies are being asked on the limitations to uplift their sustainability management, one of the common responses is budget restrictions. To them, investing in environmental protection or in the workforce wellbeing or other social issues would bring no or little financial profits to shareholders.

Failure to present convincing insights on the financial outcomes, will make getting companies on board to focus on sustainability issues to always remain a challenge. But since the Covid-19 pandemic has impacted business around the world, only now companies have started to realise the severe effect in putting sustainability risks on the side-line.

It is in fact not a new discovery that integrating ESG considerations into business strategies is not only important to mitigate external risks, but also profitable as well as important to customer allegiance and protecting against the rising number of major threats to social stability, vibrancy, and inclusivity.

 

But why is it difficult to build sound and comprehensive ESG business case?

Variations of ESG reporting – Companies around the world, in different sectors as well as different regulations, are self-reporting using different ESG metrics. Particularly for early reporters, the majority of ESG reporters disclose data and information that are not audited hence the accuracy and credibility of the disclosure are not determined. Hence, it is a challenge to validate and compare ESG performance clearly.

Limited standardisation of ESG ratings by third parties – Third-party ESG data providers are organisations outside of reporting companies. These third parties would normally use different data and rating systems, resulting in a substantial deviation of assessments.

Unclear linkages of the reporting ESG metrics to the effectiveness of ESG strategies – Many companies tend to report on whatever they have, including based on the operational initiatives in place pertaining some material matters but not directly derived from the companies’ overall ESG strategy. This restricts companies to gauge the effectiveness of the ESG strategies as the data they are monitoring is not exactly the data that they need to focus on to deliver value creation, rather than the data that they have for annual reporting purposes only.

Clear segregation of ESG metrics with financial metrics – As mentioned earlier in the article, qualifying the financial outcome of ESG initiatives could be difficult. To date, only few companies are able to track the return of ESG initiatives to their overall business revenue, and even lesser companies can provide comprehensive and consistent data.

Intangible ESG values are not easily measured – Companies often find that accounting is not the best tool to measure ESG performance as there are a lot of variables to monetise ESG values that are intangible that to date is over 80% of companies value.

To work on building a good business case, we also first need to understand the relationship between ESG and the overall business financial performance.

Companies by now should understand that integrating ESG into business operations is not just mere through corporate social responsibilities programmes. ESG integration should be aligned and centred together with business corporate strategy. A few research has found that companies that have integrated ESG into their core business outperform companies that have not in financial performance as well as stock market performance. This is because these companies strategically focus on managing the material matters that truly have impact on the business and stakeholders. This kind of research is widely available, but it is not good enough to be considered as sound business case for ESG. This is mainly due to the fact that there are still inadequate presentations on the details of how the management strategies or efforts actually work in making performance enhanced or profitable. This is why top leaders are not able to be relate and be convinced the ESG management levers that push towards financial performance.

Case studies on financial performance from sustainable investment on the other hand, have been rather complex due to various investment strategies having different performance profiles. For instance, in reference to negative screening (avoiding investment in industries, such as tobacco or weapons, that work against certain values or social goals) may limit performance as it reduces portfolio range and diversity. But currently, negative screenings that omits coal portfolios are doing well.

Regardless of these research complexity, the trend of ESG performance is showing that there is positive correlations between good ESG performance, stock price, cost of capital, and operational achievements.

 

Conclusion

A clearer business case on ESG’s financial impact are still needed to provide companies to relate and get inspired to make the move towards sustainability excellence. The business case will pave way for companies to scale up their investments in ESG in the face of pandemics like COVID-19, as well as other pressing issues such as climate change, inequality, and many other perceived or real challenges to their bottom lines. The companies’ commitment to meet its fiduciary duties as well as overseeing ESG performance should go hand in hand.

 

All views and opinions expressed on this site are by the author and do not represent any particular entity or organisation  

 

Read more →

Firming Up on ESG Management. Here’s Why Companies Should Not Delay it Any Longer?

 Photo courtesy of Pexels, for illustration purposes only

Introduction

Not many years ago, Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) agenda has always been sidetracked by companies. The importance of ESG back then was not clearly understood and only observed as an addition to regulatory obligations. The lack of awareness by the Board and management of companies also didn’t help to overturn this mentality. However, companies across various sectors nowadays have started to give more attention to its ESG management and performance. More and more companies have shown unique approaches in ensuring ESG plays an integral part of companies’ corporate strategic agenda. With the impact of COVID-19 pandemic, companies are pressured to step up their ESG management and reporting. This article will briefly highlight the approach that companies need to consider in order to meet the increasing ESG expectations.

 

Multi-Stakeholder Management

Stakeholders are affected and also affecting all of the ESG criteria – Environmental impacts, Social impacts and Governance impacts. But as a ‘Stakeholder’, social issues have always been the central focus, ranging from community engagement to subjects related to human rights. Though till now it is difficult to quantify the financial values generated from social issues, but the impacts posed by the mismanagement of these issues are severe as companies would lose the confidence and trust from its stakeholders and eventually have reputational and financial implications to companies. 

Talking about reputation, there is never the best time compared to now for companies to adhere to its corporate principles and progressively revamping its risk management processes and advances reputation. Just by meeting the current demands of internal and external stakeholders is no longer acceptable particularly to key stakeholder groups that are looking at long-term values and gain from companies. So, the demands on future ambition and performance are also vital. For example, COVID-19 has heavily impacted (and still impacting) companies’ workforce across sectors pertaining areas of health and safety, income stability, and overall workforce morale and motivation. Stakeholders are observing how companies deal with these challenges and assuring the best solution are being provided to benefit them during and after the pandemic crisis.

Specific stakeholder groups such as regulators and investors as well as other market participants that include rating agencies, will continue to press companies to place paramount attention to social issues and how companies shows resilience in the competitive and challenging business landscape.

What can be learned from the recent COVID-19 crisis is that the immediate focus on social issues creates an opportunity like never before for companies to relook and improve on its overall stakeholder management and engagement to all of its key stakeholder groups such as its workforce, community, regulators, investors, and also those across its value chain such as the suppliers.

That being said, in allocating the efforts and resources towards managing the critical social issues, companies should not lose control of the continuous enhancement of environmental and governance issues. At the end of the day, ESG issues are interconnected. Apart from that, environmental issues such as climate change imposes great threats and impacts for companies. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic should provide companies the lessons that their business should be prepared at all times of all ESG risks that may affect them in the long-term. 

 

Effective ESG Strategy

ESG is no longer something that is ‘nice to have’, but are now considered as an imperative component of companies’ financial performance and evaluation. For instance, there was an estimated increase of USD$70 billion investment pumped in the 2019 ESG funds. This supports the prediction that ESG investing to top USD$50 trillion in the coming two decades. This trend points out that ESG investing will one day become mainstream and there is a clear opportunity for companies to reap the benefit if they prepare for it from now.

An effective ESG strategy is not only important to help companies to achieve the desired sustainability ambitions, but also provides a clear direction on how they can consistently improve their performance, manage and mitigate its risks and enhance market position.

The progress and outcomes of companies’ ESG strategy should also be communicated to all stakeholders to enable companies to gain the trust and confidence especially from the investors for long-term value creation.

In reaching towards the development of an effective ESG strategy, companies should oversee in a diligent manner on five key components; the companies’ material issues, roles and responsibility of the governance structure, comprehensive policies and innovative programmes, metrics and targets, and ESG communication.

To come up with strategic focus areas, companies should analyse issues that have the most interest, as well as impactful on and towards the business and the key internal and external stakeholder groups. Focusing on financial matters are now redundant as more and more ESG related issues are gaining the interest from stakeholder groups. It is definitely difficult to meet the demands from all stakeholders, as it is also not viable for companies to neglect the business needs. So, companies should have a structured and robust process in place to derive the key issues that have balance significance on the business and also the key stakeholder groups. These are considered as the material issues that should be in reference to companies’ ESG strategy development.

A sound governance structure should also demonstrate accountability and awareness on ESG management from all levels especially the Board and management. The Board and management should be aware of all ESG risks and opportunities relevant to the company and the industry the company is in. There is no template approach in ESG management as companies varies from one another. So, it is absolutely important that the governance structure to carefully formalise the roles and responsibilities that maximises the implementation and monitoring the robustness, effectiveness and the performance of companies’ ESG strategy. It is also important to note, that even though there might be specific functions or personnel that are responsible to oversee ESG management of a company, the ideal approach is for the collaboration of different functions to come together and work on ESG management as one whole unit and to ensure regular and beneficial exchanges of information are feasible. This would allow better risk and opportunities management particularly once companies have define the material matters to companies.

The development of ESG policies and programmes should be well-coordinated and strategically planned out. In order to do so, companies should not envision the short and medium-term outcomes but to also evaluate the long-term outcomes for the companies and stakeholders. In undertaking this evaluation, companies must see the areas that are feasible for them to optimise and capitalise in the specialties and strengths that are unique and aligned to the companies’ values. Most importantly, companies must anticipate the potential changes in the business landscape including the political, regional, regulatory, social and environmental trends that would likely to occur within the proximity of companies’ operations and influence. This would allow the companies to reap the long-term financial returns and remain competitive at all times. Having these understandings, companies should be in a good position to allocate the investments, resources, timeframe to implement the relevant plans for its ESG strategy.

The success of any strategy, including ESG strategy depends on various factors that are controllable and uncontrollable. Companies should always monitor the performance of the developed strategy to analyse the value it brings to be desirable or would actually cost additional effort and unnecessary investments to the companies in the long run. Companies must adapt and be flexible to changes and also must know when. The results from the materiality assessment (to identify the material matters of a company), should be referred to in developing the relevant metrics, KPIs and targets that are achievable and realistic to place companies in a higher ESG management position. Setting metrics, KPIs and targets that are too ambitious immediately may result in early failures that would lead to demotivation to oversee ESG management as a whole. The overall objective is essentially to measure companies’ ESG performance, so companies should be mindful to develop metrices, KPIs and targets based on its ability to improve and that are manageable to monitor over a sustainable period of time.

The progress of companies’ ESG performance provides important data and information for companies to readjust and restructure on improvement approaches. It provides important data and information for stakeholders as well. It is already well known that the access to transparent information on companies financial and ESG performance is key to gain stakeholders’ confidence, trust and loyalty. Communicating ESG performance may come in various ways via companies’ Annual Reports, Sustainability Reports, websites, AGMs and companies may even create specific events to solely discuss and share on their ESG performance and obtain instant feedback from the stakeholders. This would not only provide insights on the rationale and ambition of companies ESG strategy to stakeholders but also provides solid and concrete responses on how certain stakeholders value the ESG strategy that are affecting them. These exchanges of information will further assist companies to develop or redevelop better ESG strategies.

 

Conclusion

Companies’ ESG strategies or framework for continuous value creation should by now be driven by the Board and management that oversee ESG management and reporting as not merely a voluntary approach to one that in some jurisdictions is increasingly subject to mandatory reporting. Companies that have not embarked on ESG integration into their business operations, or companies that have started to, or even companies that have somewhat fully integrated ESG must all understand that the current landscape demands them to always be ready to improve and adapt. There is no room to be comfortable with the current establishment and practices in place would eventually be obsolete without them even realising it.

 

All views and opinions expressed on this site are by the author and do not represent any particular entity or organisation 

Read more →

COVID-19 Has Taught Us that Conventional Risk Management is Obsolete. Here’s Why.

 Photo courtesy of Pexels, for illustration purposes only

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has indeed shocked the world and are putting many business in a fragile state in being able to sustain in the long term. COVID-19 as the current biggest threats to organisations regardless of their industry and locations, has pressured businesses to reevaluate their priorities and business strategies to strive in the already challenging world but companies has taken a step back to assess whether its current risk management process is robust enough for the business impact from COVID-19 or other external risks.

 

The Rise of Environmental, Social and Governance Risks

The World Economic Forum in one of its recent reports has shared that the biggest risks businesses will face in the next year (up to 18 months) is the prolonged recession of the global economy.  Organisations should be aware that external risks, including the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) risks are categorised beyond the fallout of the pandemic; economic risks, societal risks, technological risks and environmental risks and should raise concerns amongst businesses.

Organisations by now should have already looked at the approaches to feasibly integrate ESG risks into its business risk management. Just like the business threats imposed from COVID-19, these ESG risks are not expressed using financial metrics. But as from what has been vivid from the pandemic, they certainly pose great financial implications. Climate change has been under the focus of many businesses nowadays as not only it has gained tractions from regulators, but it has caused social unrest and physical disasters or transition and physical risks to organisations. This also has caused the risk landscape to be changing, and changing drastically. The rise in not only economic, but health, social and environmental crises we all are facing today could only mean that organisations must reevaluate the corporate strategy, reframe their business future ambition and revamp the risk management framework as a whole.

 

New Approach to Risk Management

It has taken the detrimental effect of COVID-19 to coerced organisations’ Board directors and managements to scrutinise external risks (including ESG risks) as the core subject, and relook at the areas lacking in management and monitoring of external risks.  

Just weeks before the pandemic, the result from a survey of 500 Board directors and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) found that only around one-fifth of Board directors were “very satisfied” with their effectiveness in overseeing changes to the risk landscape and resulted in adjustment in organisations’ risk appetite accordingly. This is also the same ratio that represents that Board directors were “extremely confident” in risk reporting from management on a range of significant issues.

These findings signifies the point that conventional risk management processes should change and improve, and companies are paying attention. The World Economic Forum also provides insights from a published paper on integrated governance that noted the necessity for businesses to also improve in stakeholder engagement in order to manage risk strategically.

One of the six recommendations is to internalize material ESG & Data factors in enterprise risk management and Boards must gain more in-depth understanding of rapidly evolving environmental, social, governance and data stewardship risks.

Recently, COSO launched a report that focuses on the integral components of the Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) framework, the Risk Appetite Framework. The report by COSO highlights the approach on transform business ‘to anticipate and understand their risk when change happens and to better embrace change and be more agile in challenging conditions’.

This is mainly because in complete absence of a good governance of risk management of both from the internal and external stakeholders’ perspective, organisations will not have the necessary resources and capacity to set up a robust external risk management processes. This will also come hand in hand with the fallout from the lack of trust with organisations’ stakeholders. External or ESG risks management do not only require organisations to look at how they can protect shareholder interest but it’s about being prepared and responsive to the societal and environmental needs as a whole.

 

The Limitations of Conventional Risk Management

The survey by EY global risk also shows that close to 80% of Board directors indicates that organisations are unprepared for significant events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This is probably due to the lack of governance practiced in conventional risk management as only 40% of Board directors and management explained that ERM are effective in managing atypical and emerging risks.

This is contributed due to data management and analysis. We have now seen that the majority of the current risk management processes have become obsolete and are not built to manage the abundance of critical data generated. Without efficient data management and analysis, the typical risk management process may not succeed in extracting meaningful insights and apply the necessary steps to gain the value and benefits from data analysis.

50% of financial leaders concur to the statement that they spend more time gathering and processing data than they do analysing it, yet alone the decision-making process based on through risk data analysis.

Apart from good corporate governance practices, the Board directors have imperative roles in ensuring risk management practices in organisations run efficiently. The power of data should not be overlooked. Obtaining and most importantly, utilising a continuous stream of valuable and latest data and information is paramount in order to gain buy-in at the Board level. Evaluations and understanding of emerging trends, and prioritising the needs and demands of stakeholders are key considerations to ensure organisations to improve in the overall risk management processes and improve the organisations’ performance. Thus, it is absolutely essential for Boards directors to have the support via data analysis to gain the awareness and insights of the impacts of poor external and ESG risk management on the business.

 

Technology is the Solution

The current business environment requires organisations to meet stakeholder demands and expectations. The question is; Do organisations have enough resources and capabilities to meet the demands and expectations? One of the pressing matters to get internal management’s buy-in is the investment in technology. Organisations cannot be both timely and accurate in producing information from data analysis without the very latest technology. Organisations need a defensible, technology-driven process to back that up and to monitor the risk landscape as it evolves.

The business world we are in today are exposed to complex external risk environment that make organisations vulnerable to broader, complicated and often indirect risks that are very challenging to manage and monitor. As mentioned earlier, effective risk management presses organisations to be focus on data-driven approaches that allow organisations to mitigate the external landscape and focus on the risks that are the most material. These insights will provide with strategic considerations to enable a more dynamic business decision making.

Organisations should start to reinforce risk governance and internal controls and these need to be aligned with the areas that are deemed critical to be improved and transformed. Together with adoption of sophisticated technology software and infrastructure, organisations will possess the systems in place to utilise extensive range of data into something useful and viable information to develop business strategies and profitable business making processes, where and when it matter most.

If we revise the impact of the pandemic, organisations should have already anticipated the drastic response from regulators, governments, peers and wider society. According to Datamaran that tracked regulatory and corporate responses to pandemic more broadly by applying Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyse the COVID-19 specific responses in real-time, the access to information are more accurate and obtained faster that are imperative for data analysis to give the edge to strive during and post COVID-19 crisis.

AI does not only save laborious time for data consolidation, but it is extremely useful for consistent monitoring. This would be beneficial in order for organisations to identify, structure and prioritise specific risks that are the most impactful to them during a specific period of time. With this, organisations will always be flexible and responsive to any external risks impacting them.

 

Communication on Data-driven Approach in Risk Management Processes

Responding to risks is the defensive approach for companies to be resilient. Proactive approach can be taken with embracing data-driven strategies for other external risks that at the moment are unclear, undetermined and uncertain. Leveraging on data with the right systems and technologies should facilitate organisations to be ready when these external risks emerge and impacting the business and the stakeholders within the operational boundaries and value chain.

Organisations’ plans should not be based on subjective judgements. Acknowledging that risk management is core to organisations, investment in resources and capacity needs are crucial to ensure overall business operations are robust and responsive. Organsations should also focus on communicating the outcome of data-driven approach are being taken to its stakeholders. Organisations should provide more information in the content of the annual reports, that include the risk factors and the forward-looking statements (should) be based on and rely on the risk analysis realised through the risk management framework and corresponding processes. Organisations are also encouraged to express how the Board directors and management determine the risk level organisations are ready to accept that are based on data-driven approach (Risk Appetite Framework). Stakeholders that are made aware of when data feeds into organisations’ decision making, will be assured that the overall business’ risk management processes are more robust, thereby increasing confidence in the organisations. 

 

Conclusion

As we look past lockdown to the rest of 2020 and beyond, robust external and ESG risk management is going to be increasingly vital for building resilient businesses and improving the trust of their stakeholders. Organisations should place the right governance and strategies to ensure data-driven approach are integrated into the current risk management processes to ensure responsiveness to the challenging risks to the business.

 

All views and opinions expressed on this site are by the author and do not represent any particular entity or organisation 

 

Read more →

The G in ESG Determines the Success of the Overall ESG Performance. Here’s why.

 Photo courtesy of Pexels, for illustration purposes only 

Introduction

When it comes to discussions with companies on Environmental, Social and Governance, everything was thought to be heavy on the environmental and philanthropic matters. It seems that the ‘G’ topics have always been less focused as compared to the ‘E’ and ‘S’ topics. Well, that may all change and here’s why.

 

Environmental and Social Performance Are Linked to Good Corporate Governance Practices

Companies have now started to pay more attention to climate change (E element of ESG) issues that not only include how their businesses impact to the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions level, but also how climate change poses risks to their businesses as well. Now that businesses are striving to sustain during the current pandemic crisis due to COVID-19, the focus on the S element of ESG such as healthcare, wellbeing and employee management has risen. What companies need to be aware of is that whilst they are concentrating to manage the E and S elements better, they simultaneously would need to revamp on the G element of ESG; Governance.

According to the Chief Operating Officer (CEO) to one of the world leaders in the food producers industry, Danone, structurally integrating Environmental and Social responsibility in companies Governance is the approach to be more strategic on the E and S elements.

Now that there has been a surged in meeting the demands to better communicate and manage companies’ stakeholders during the current COVID-19 pandemic, there have even been expectations on the potential establishment of new, and more agile corporate governance standards and models. This claim is supported by a project undertaken by the UK’s Institute if Directors with an independent body pertaining the key issues of corporate governance affecting Boards as companies striving from the impact of COVID-19, and at the same time to be able to meet the ongoing expectations such as the United Nation’s SustainableDevelopment Goals (SDGs), stakeholder engagement and transparency as well as investment in new technological infrastructures.

Governments across the world have also been playing their role to reduce the stress of private companies during COVID-19. Capital allocations in the form of bailouts, loans, grants, tax concessions and equity purchases from governments are a precursor for institutional investors to make quick and smart shifts in corporate governance to be aligned and integrated with environmental and social goals as well as in stakeholder management as a whole.

 

Poor Corporate Governance Practices Have Financial Implications

These shifts would realign corporate governance as the reference point of strategic asset allocation (SAA) due diligence and approach. As mentioned in a recent published research by the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), sound corporate governance is imperative in the cases studies presented from the investment management industry. In one of the case studies, Aberdeen Standard Investment highlighted that “We think that corporate governance is often largely ignored by SAA. Investors focus on economic growth and valuation, without asking enough about whether the aggregate quality of governance will affect the ability of companies to translate that growth into shareholder returns.” The case study clearly indicates that the global financial crisis was directly due the systematic failure of sound corporate governance in the global financial services industry that include the mis-selling, lax risk controls, and over-reliance on short-term wholesale funding. The global financial crisis resulted in the enforcement of tougher regulations, lower relative returns in the sector, and a steep learning curve for those involved in the business of SAA.

The case study focuses merely on sectorial performance rather than individual companies’ corporate governance practices, where it has been understood by its SAA within the Japanese equity market, an arena where the shareholder returns had been dreary for the best part of 30 years. This is partly resulted from the poor corporate governance practices showcased particularly in stakeholder management. It is said, just 15% of Japanese corporate boards had independent directors to represent the interests of minority shareholders in 2011, most Annual Grand Meetings (AGMs) were held on the same (and limited) days each year, causing the challenge for shareholders for effective and productive engagements with directors.

Apart from that, due to the poor corporate governance practised, it was observed that the effort to promote value for shareholders was inadequate, on top of extremely low profit margins, cash hoarding, and low pay-out ratios. In the end, Aberdeen’s SAA to Japan was relatively low in comparison to its international equity holdings.

In 2015, the necessary shift to adopt a new corporate governance code was established. In turn, 4 years later, around 90% of Japanese companies had appointed independent directors. Apart from that, the scheduling of AGMs were organised to ensure no clashes of events occurred. The rise of shareholder activism was also seen, as well as in the large domestic pensions funds where special attention was paid to regarding shareholder returns. All of this had fruitful consequences where the return on equity has increased due to equity buybacks and payout in dividends. 

Aberdeen’s researchers also noted that Japan isn’t special for this case. It’s is just a mere example. “Governance quality materially affects our assumptions about margins, buybacks, and valuation multiples for several equity markets. And it doesn’t stop at equities. We see governance as a key part of our evaluation of default risk and recovery rates for credit portfolios,” they added.

 

Focusing on Sustainability Budgets

According to another case study from Schroders, ‘sustainability budget’ is the answer to imbed ESG in the SAA process and one element that anchors the process is through corporate governance.

Director of Investment Practices of the PRI, Toby Belsom stated that; “Good governance has been demonstrated to ‘make a significant incremental difference to value creation as measured by long-term risk-adjusted rates of return’. The further along the sustainability spectrum that assets are managed, the larger the governance budget required to manage those assets in a sustainable way.”

And, as the number of asset classes managed sustainably increases, a larger governance budget will need to be assigned. “There is the need for a new framework… a ‘sustainability budget’, alongside a risk budget, so that real-world outcomes might be incorporated into SAA decision-making.”

It’s also interesting to note the highlights made by S&P Global’s Kelly Tang in a study on corporate governance in ESG. She mentioned; “There is already substantial empirical evidence to suggest that the G aspect of ESG ultimately yields better corporate returns. Governance data, unlike environmental or social data, has been compiled for a longer period of time and the criteria for what comprises good governance and its classification has been more widely discussed and accepted.”

 

Conclusion

Companies will soon realise that disintegrating each element of ESG, or placing one element more important than the other, will no longer be ideal to meet future demands and expectations from stakeholders. We have widely seen companies excel in its social and environmental performance, but with limited information on how they are being anchored by a strong and responsible good corporate governance practices. In light of COVID-19, the severity of the pandemic was more related to national and global governance failures, not taking companies accountable. However good corporate governance practices of private companies is much likely to influence returns for decades.

 

All views and opinions expressed on this site are by the author and do not represent any particular entity or organisation  

Read more →