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
What a quarter-million dollars gets you in the western capital.
Alexandre de Betak and his wife are focusing on their most personal project yet.
The bequests benefit charities, distant relatives and even pets
4 min
Charities, distant relatives and even pets are benefiting from surprise inheritances. They can thank people without children.
Not having children is becoming more common, both among millennials and older people. A July Pew Research Center analysis found that 20% of U.S. adults age 50 and older hadn’t had children.
And many of these people don’t have wills. An AARP survey found half of childless people age 50-plus who live alone have a will, compared with 57% of others that age. Those without wills have less control over what happens to their money, which often ends up in the hands of people who don’t expect it.
This phenomenon of a surprise inheritance is common enough that it has a name: the laughing heir .
“All they do is get the money and go, ‘Ah ha ha, look at that,’ ” said Michael Ettinger , an estate lawyer in New York.
Kelley Gilpin McKeig, a 64-year-old healthcare-industry consultant in Ridgefield, Wash., received a phone call several years ago saying her cousin Nick Caldwell left behind money in a savings account. They hadn’t been in touch for 20 years.
“I thought it was a scam,” she said. “Nobody else in our family had heard that he had passed.”
She hunted down his death certificate and a news article and learned he had died about a year and a half before in a workplace accident.
Caldwell, who was in his 50s, had died without a will. His estate was split among cousins and an uncle. It took about two years for the money to be distributed because of the paperwork and court approval involved. Gilpin McKeig’s share was $2,300.
Afterward, she updated her will to make sure what she has doesn’t go to “just anybody down the line, or cousins I don’t care about.”
There are trillions of dollars at stake as baby boomers age.
Most people leave their money to spouses and children when they die. A 2021 analysis of Federal Reserve survey data found that 82% of heirs’ inheritances came from parents.
People with no children say they want to leave a greater share of their estates to charity, friends and extended family , according to research by two Yale law professors that surveyed 9,000 U.S. adults.
Rebecca Fornwalt, a 33-year-old writer, created a trust after landing a book deal. While her heirs are her parents, her backup heirs include her sister and about a half-dozen close friends. She set aside $15,000 for the care of each of her two dogs.
Susan Lassiter-Lyons , a financial coach in Florence, Ariz., said one childless client is leaving equal interests in her home to her two nephews. Another is leaving her home to a man she has been friends with for a long time.
“She broke his heart years ago and she feels guilted into leaving him property,” Lassiter-Lyons said.
A client who is a former escort estranged from her family is leaving her estate to two friends and to charity.
Lassiter-Lyons, who doesn’t have children, set up a trust for her two dogs should she and her wife die. The pet guardian, her wife’s sister, would live in their house while taking care of the dogs. When the dogs die, she inherits the house.
In the Yale study, people without descendants—children or grandchildren—intended to give 10% of their estates to charity, on average, more than triple the intended amount of those with descendants.
The Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles, which manages $1.3 billion of assets, a few years ago added an “heirless donors” section to its website that profiles donors and talks about building a legacy.
“Fifteen years ago, we never talked about child-free donors at all,” said Lew Groner , the foundation’s vice president for marketing.
In the absence of a will, heirs are determined by state law . Assets can wind up in the state’s hands. In New York, for example, $240 million in unclaimed funds over the past 10 years has arrived from estates of the deceased, not including real estate, according to the state comptroller’s office. In California, it is $54.3 million.
Financial advisers say a far bigger concern than who gets what is making sure there is enough money and support for a comfortable old age, because clients without children can’t call on them for help.
“I hope there is something left to leave,” said Stephanie Maxfield, a 43-year-old therapist in southern Colorado. “But if there isn’t, I think that’s OK, too.”
She said she would like to leave something to her partner’s nieces and nephews, as well as animal shelters and domestic-violence shelters. Her best friend is a beneficiary.
Choosing an estate executor and who would handle money and health decisions on your behalf can be difficult when you don’t have children, financial advisers say. Using a promised inheritance as a reward for taking care of you when you are older isn’t a good solution, said Jay Zigmont , an investment adviser focused on childless people.
“Unfortunately, it is relatively common to see family members who are in the will decide to opt for cheaper medical care (or similar decisions) in order to protect what they will be inheriting,” he said in an email.
Kirsten Tompkins, who is from Birmingham, U.K., and works in consulting, along with her husband divided their estate among their dozen nieces and nephews.
Choosing heirs was the easy part. What is hard is figuring out whom to ask for help as she and her husband get older, she said.
“A lot of us are at an age where we are playing that role for our parents,” the 50-year-old said, referring to tasks such as providing tech support and taking parents to medical appointments. “Who is going to do that for us?”
