Company board directors say ESG efforts have brought about real benefits, but the political backlash has had an impact
5 min
Many corporate board directors aren’t confident about their ability—or their board’s—to oversee sustainability and social impact issues, even as companies pursue such goals and regulators want more disclosures on environmental, social and governance impact.
Eighty-three percent of directors surveyed said ESG topics were critical knowledge for directors, but less than half considered themselves to have “advanced” or “expert” level knowledge, according to a survey of board directors conducted in July by WSJ Pro in collaboration with the National Association of Corporate Directors.Directors of larger firms and listed companies expressed higher confidence, as did those in the energy industry.Respondents relied on external advisers to build their knowledge.
Other findings were that most believed sustainability efforts had brought real benefits and said ESG engagement with investors had been mostly positive. Directors also said the anti-ESG movement had an impact. They also reported that while about half of big companies had ESG targets—many linked to executive compensation—smaller, private companies lagged behind.
The survey’s 506 respondents covered a range of company sizes and included public, private and not-for-profit organisations from many sectors, with a concentration in financial services, industry, tech and energy. They said their ESG maturity level was across the spectrum: 4% self-identified as industry leaders, 27% as well developed, 36% as somewhat developed, 28% as early stage and 5% hadn’t started with ESG. Overall respondents rated their own ESG expertise slightly higher than that of their fellow board members.
“As a board member, if you’re hoping that ESG is just a fad that will pass with time, we have enough data now from the last 2½ decades to know ESG is here to stay and boards need to be ready,” said Kristin Campbell, general counsel and chief ESG officer of Hilton Worldwide Holdings and board director at ODP and Regency Centers.
Campbell said boards must evaluate ESG as part of the company’s long-term strategy, otherwise activists, regulators, customers or someone else might do it for them, perhaps in a way that will be painful operationally or harmful to their reputation. “It’s that classic story of either you’re at the table or you’re on the menu,” said Campbell.
Alan Smith—responsible for the strategic management of the Church of England’s £10.1 billion (equivalent to $12.6 billion) perpetual endowment fund—said many boards had brushed up on ESG knowledge with in-house training, e-learning packages or advisers to run workshops. A former senior adviser at HSBC on climate and ESG risk and current First Church Estates Commissioner, Smith said he also found it helpful to see projects, such as offshore-wind farms, and speak to their operators in person.
“I think an integrated approach to board director education—of which one important part is getting on the ground and in the mud or on the boat—is very important,” he said.
More than two thirds of directors said their organisations brought in external advisers to complement or build board’s ESG skills, with most advisers providing subject matter expertise (44%), education and training (41%), or research and analysis (37%).
“What we know about ESG will change today and will probably change tomorrow,” Hilton’s Campbell said. “It’s the job of an external adviser to know what’s going to happen next week and next year, which is useful in keeping the board ahead of the game.”
Overall, investors were the most influential stakeholders on board decisions related to ESG strategy, followed by company executives, regulators and customers. For public companies investors were most influential, followed by regulators, while directors of private businesses ranked their customers as top with investors in second place.
Respondents ranked their ESG-related interactions with investors as largely positive or neutral. Seventy-one percent of directors of organisations with investors said their largest ones had engaged with the board over the past 12 months on ESG topics.
However, public and private businesses approached this engagement quite differently. Private company investors most often engaged with the full board or directly with management, whereas public company investors worked most often with individual directors or sometimes with the full board, but rarely with management.
The survey also examined the impact of the rising anti-ESG movement in the U.S. Many boards started their ESG journey in 2020, but, particularly in the last six to 12 months, the extent of the political backlash in the U.S. has made it more complicated, said Smith. “You had a wind that was giving companies and boards energy, and now you have a countervailing wind of political backlash,” Smith said.
As the pressure has mounted, there have been numerous reports of green-hushing—when a company scales back what it says about its climate and social initiatives in corporate communications. The survey found evidence to support this: 7% of directors said their company no longer publicly communicates about its ESG activities, and 14% said their board and management no longer use the term ESG when referring to relevant activities.
Respondents report substantive changes too. One in five said their companies are reassessing their approach to ESG, 12% said they have deprioritised ESG as a critical business issue, and 15% of directors, primarily in smaller private businesses, believe ESG is negatively affecting their business decisions and strategy.
Despite those changes, half of respondents believe ESG will continue to be an important driver of their business decisions and strategy. Nearly as many say their board and management remain committed to ESG as an opportunity for growth and a driver of long-term risk reduction.
While most respondents said ESG is critical knowledge for directors, only 37% of their organisations have set a climate-impact reduction target, although that was 54% for large organisations. Nine out of 10 of those companies with a target said their boards monitored their progress toward those goals and four out of five believed they were achievable.
To encourage management to hit targets, over one quarter of respondents said their company had linked executive pay to ESG goals, and a further 29% were considering doing so in the next 12 months.
“If we’re going to be more serious about ESG and building it into a company’s long-term strategy then I think it needs to be tied to executive compensation like any other [key performance indicator],” Campbell said.
Nearly a fifth of directors surveyed said reducing the impact of climate change is a priority regardless of financial performance. Almost half said it is a priority but not at the cost of financial performance, while the remaining third said it isn’t a priority at all.
Many directors report real benefits from their ESG efforts. In particular it has enhanced their company’s reputation and brand value (57%), risk management and resilience (54%), and ability to attract and retain talent (44% and 40%, respectively).
Climate change was talked about more frequently in 43% of the boardrooms, while in 31% it actually decreased. The topic was discussed at most or every board meeting for 29% of respondents, 36% said it came up at some meetings, and 23% said it was rarely talked about. Only 11%—primarily small, private companies—hadn’t discussed it at all.
Smith said it was particularly important for smaller companies to keep climate change front of mind: “Those that say they aren’t doing anything yet are paradoxically the ones that may be hit first because they’re downstream of big companies setting more immediate net zero carbon neutral targets.”
As well as calling it a business differentiator for small businesses, Smith said a focus on climate impact reduction was “a survival mechanism.”
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
Rugged coastal drives and fireside drams define a slow, indulgent journey through Scotland’s far north.
A haven for hedge-fund titans and Hollywood grandees, Greenwich is one of the world’s most expensive residential enclaves, where eye-watering prices meet unapologetic grandeur.
The lunar flyby would be the deepest humans have traveled in space in decades.
4 min
It’s go time for the highest-stakes mission at NASA in more than 50 years.
On April 1, the agency is set to launch four astronauts around the moon, the deepest human spaceflight since the final Apollo lunar landing in 1972.
The launch window for Artemis II , as the mission is called, opens at 6:24 p.m. ET.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration teams have been preparing the vehicles to depart from Florida’s Kennedy Space Center on the planned roughly 10-day trip. Crew members have trained for years for this moment.
Reid Wiseman, the NASA astronaut serving as mission commander, said he doesn’t fear taking the voyage. A widower, he does worry at times about what he is putting his daughters through.
“I could have a very comfortable life for them,” Wiseman said in an interview last September.
“But I’m also a human, and I see the spirit in their eyes that is burning in my soul too. And so we’ve just got to never stop going.”
Wiseman’s crewmates on Artemis II are NASA’s Victor Glover and Christina Koch, as well as Canadian Space Agency astronaut Jeremy Hansen.
What are the goals for Artemis II?
The biggest one: Safely fly the crew on vehicles that have never carried astronauts before.
The towering Space Launch System rocket has the job of lofting a vehicle called Orion into space and on its way to the moon.
Orion is designed to carry the crew around the moon and back. Myriad systems on the ship—life support, communications, navigation—will be tested with the astronauts on board.
SLS and Orion don’t have much flight experience. The vehicles last flew in 2022, when the agency completed its uncrewed Artemis I mission .
How is the mission expected to unfold?
Artemis II will begin when SLS takes off from a launchpad in Florida with Orion stacked on top of it.
The so-called upper stage of SLS will later separate from the main part of the rocket with Orion attached, and use its engine to set up the latter vehicle for a push to the moon.
After Orion separates from the upper stage, it will conduct what is called a translunar injection—the engine firing that commits Orion to soaring out to the moon. It will fly to the moon over the course of a few days and travel around its far side.
Orion will face a tough return home after speeding through space. As it hits Earth’s atmosphere, Orion will be flying at 25,000 miles an hour and face temperatures of 5,000 degrees as it slows down. The capsule is designed to land under parachutes in the Pacific Ocean, not far from San Diego.
Is it possible Artemis II will be delayed?
Yes.
For safety reasons, the agency won’t launch if certain tough weather conditions roll through the Cape Canaveral, Fla., area. Delays caused by technical problems are possible, too. NASA has other dates identified for the mission if it doesn’t begin April 1.
Who are the astronauts flying on Artemis II?
The crew will be led by Wiseman, a retired Navy pilot who completed military deployments before joining NASA’s astronaut corps. He traveled to the International Space Station in 2014.
Two other astronauts will represent NASA during the mission: Glover, an experienced Navy pilot, and Koch, who began her career as an electrical engineer for the agency and once spent a year at a research station in the South Pole. Both have traveled to the space station before.
Hansen is a military pilot who joined Canada’s astronaut corps in 2009. He will be making his first trip to space.
Koch’s participation in Artemis II will mark the first time a woman has flown beyond orbits near Earth. Glover and Hansen will be the first African-American and non-American astronauts, respectively, to do the same.
What will the astronauts do during the flight?
The astronauts will evaluate how Orion flies, practice emergency procedures and capture images of the far side of the moon for scientific and exploration purposes (they may become the first humans to see parts of the far side of the lunar surface). Health-tracking projects of the astronauts are designed to inform future missions.
Those efforts will play out in Orion’s crew module, which has about two minivans worth of living area.
On board, the astronauts will spend about 30 minutes a day exercising, using a device that allows them to do dead lifts, rowing and more. Sleep will come in eight-hour stretches in hammocks.
There is a custom-made warmer for meals, with beef brisket and veggie quiche on the menu.
Each astronaut is permitted two flavored beverages a day, including coffee. The crew will hold one hourlong shared meal each day.
The Universal Waste Management System—that’s the toilet—uses air flow to pull fluid and solid waste away into containers.
What happens after Artemis II?
Assuming it goes well, NASA will march on to Artemis III, scheduled for next year. During that operation, NASA plans to launch Orion with crew members on board and have the ship practice docking with lunar-lander vehicles that Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin have been developing. The rendezvous operations will occur relatively close to Earth.
NASA hopes that its contractors and the agency itself are ready to attempt one or more lunar landing missions in 2028. Many current and former spaceflight officials are skeptical that timeline is feasible.
