We know that 'people are our biggest asset' but how do we include this in financial investment cases? Traditional financial accounts give only part of the picture (the result), not the how & the why. A framework from Felix Oberholzer-Gee at HBS can help us think about human capital like an investor.
Living as I do in Europe, the shift to electric buses looks strong, capturing a growing share of the new bus market. But from an investor perspective is this the full picture. Yes & No. Other questions we also need to ask - how many existing buses are electric, and where are the sales happening?
We are increasingly reading about how many private insurance companies are massively increasing premiums, or withdrawing from some markets altogether. In some cases the government is taking up the slack, but in others it's companies via self insurance. Is this a risk investors should worry about?
This is not a question about whether it is possible for humans to prosper by eating less meat (we know that is possible). It's more about how we might get to this outcome, given that our economic system currently has conflicting objectives around the price of food vs our health & environment.
We often mix up what as a society we need, with what we can afford. This is not about blocking sustainability actions. It's about identifying who needs to do what to make something actually happen. And we need to remember that not all decisions are purely financial.
Based on what's in the press, we should worry more about floods and sea level rise. But, while the financial impact of floods on our society is material, the human cost of excess deaths suggests we should also worry about heat stress, as this may make regulation of building cooling more likely.
Hoping that incumbent companies will change can lead to disappointment. Incremental is ok, but big changes sometimes need a new entrant. Incumbents have too much to lose. So maybe our first question should be 'will the incumbents deliver the change we want or do we need creative destruction'?
It's often hard to get people to worry about the long term when the short term looks fine. This bias is a real challenge in sustainability. It can not only lead us to underestimate the financial risks, it can also lead us to misunderstand them. Global agricultural production is a great example.
Some phrases mean different things to different people. Win/win is one of those. Even if an action can be shown to be a win for both a company and society, there are good reasons why management might still NOT act. We need to be clear about how the win will play out when we plan engagements.
It's not getting easier for many automotive companies. Sales are will likely remain below pre covid levels for some time, and margin pressure looks unlikely to abate. And EV investment needs are rising. Can we expect them to be able to fund the EV transition - or does the future lie elsewhere?
More frequent climate extremes will impact our food supplies. Arguably we are past just mitigation and well into adaptation. One crop that could be materially impacted are bananas. The possible future for banana's gives us insights into the risks and opportunities for the wider food supply chain.
We 'know' that a company's share price is determined by what happens in the future. And that this is where sustainability issues play their part, changing the likely course of the future. But how the share price responds depends on what investors are already expecting. Consensus matters.