Published 9 months ago.
About a 4 minute read.
It is important to know the difference between these terms — and the potential for there to be some divergence between how a company performs on either measure. A company with a high impact rating and low ESG risk doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a great investment opportunity.
Tesla is frequently in the headlines of the mainstream media — and often not
for the reasons investors would like. The company is founded on principles that
were meant to revolutionize the automotive market and clean technology space.
But the eccentric, sometimes confounding behavior of founder and CEO Elon
Musk means that the firm does not rate highly on governance and social
For example, Musk’s dramatic acquisition of Twitter last year caused stock
price volatility and reputational
— which rates listed companies on ESG factors — rates Tesla as medium risk and
in the bottom half of both the automobile sector and all companies, despite its
lofty climate ambitions.
According to research from Morningstar’s Investable
World — a data-driven digital
experience designed to make sustainable investing more understandable, engaging
and actionable for investors — Tesla has an estimated 86 percent of revenue tied
to the Climate Action impact theme but a Medium ESG Risk Rating, owing to weak
product governance and social and management concerns.
Other companies boast similarly high impact, yet face high ESG risk.
Unlock customer insights on sustainability & your brand’s unique performance! Submit your brand (or any brand) into the 2024 annual study and receive unparalleled insights on customer perception of that brand’s performance. Benchmark how your customers rate your brand on social and environmental sustainability and overall brand trust, while seeing how your brand compares to others in the study. Space is limited! The deadline to become part of the study is January 15, 2024.
CVS, for example, rebranded itself in 2014 to CVS Health to reflect its
broader healthcare commitment and a desire to improve the future of health in
the US. That same year, the company famously banned the sale of all tobacco
in all its stores, in spite of the expectation that it would cost an estimated
$2 billion in sales.
But Sustainalytics rates CVS as medium risk and similar to subindustry average.
Despite its industry-leading commitment to health and wellness, in the past year
CVS has suffered backlash over several controversies — relating to abortion-drug policies and a $5 billion settlement in an opioid lawsuit — the
latter of which is the most financially material for the company and constrains
our fair value estimate by about 3 percent.
What we are seeing here is the difference between ESG risk versus ESG impact.
Risks are the negative externalities that might affect the ongoing financial
success of a business, including issues related to climate-change mitigation
such as regulatory changes or expenses tied to adaptation. This might also
include costs to manage working and safety conditions, as well as dealing with
employee and consumer concerns around human
corruption and legal compliance.
Impact, on the other hand, describes the non-financial outcomes of companies’
activities — which can lead to improvement (or harm) to the environmental,
social or governance measures of the planet. These include everything from
moving towards net-zero
or decarbonizing supply
to increased efforts on employee safety, gender equality, and living wages to
the company and beyond.
It is important to understand the difference between these terms — and the
potential for there to be some divergence between how an individual company
performs on either measure. We believe all investors must be conscious of risk
management (ESG or otherwise) in making a final decision to invest, while some
investors might want to additionally focus on impact.
A company with a high impact rating and low ESG risk doesn’t necessarily mean
it’s a great investment opportunity. Investors should also consider whether a
company has carved an economic
moat — an ability
to protect long-term economic returns through durable competitive advantages. In
addition, the question of if a company makes sense as an investment comes down
to valuation. Whether it’s a high-impact firm, a low-ESG risk stock, or even a
company with an economic moat, investors should focus on the price they’re
paying and the value they’re getting.
Investors can overpay for companies with moats — or equally, get a great
discount on a firm that’s driving high-impact alignment.
Morningstar reviewed the relationship between moats and ESG ratings for hundreds
of companies. When comparing the ESG Exposure ratings — which is a data point
that reflects Sustainalytics’ view on a firm’s exposure to 20 material ESG
issues including carbon emissions, human
land use and
— of wide-moat to no-moat companies, there is strong evidence to suggest that,
on average, the ESG risk that wide-moat companies are exposed to is lower than
that of no-moat peers.
Interestingly, there’s little evidence that these wide-moat companies are doing
more to address ESG issues. Nevertheless, value investors’ focus on economic
moats appears to provide some level of inherent protection against ESG risks.
Correlation does not necessarily mean causation; but if value investors continue
to focus on locating stocks with the widest of moats and attractive price versus
fair value when making stock selections, they may find the ESG risks that their
portfolios face are inherently lower than the broader market.
Making the right decision requires investors to look at sustainable investment
metrics in the multilateral, complex way they examine traditional investment
metrics. Through this process, a company that seems to be a sustainability
leader may ultimately be deemed unattractive.
Published Feb 20, 2023 7am EST / 4am PST / 12pm GMT / 1pm CET
Adam Fleck is Director of Equity Research for ESG at Morningstar Research Services.