Strategic CSR - ESG

At a time when ESG is being attacked on all sides (the acronym, rightly so; the underlying sentiment, incorrectly), Barron's annual ranking of the "Top 100 Sustainable Companies" appeared in the article in the url below. You might be surprised at the No.1 company on the list (for the second year running):

"Clorox holds the crown for the No. 1 spot on the list for the third consecutive year. The consumer staples company, which owns household brands such as Burt's Bees, Glad, and Hidden Valley Ranch, scores high based on environmental factors, product safety and quality, and governance. While last year the company stood out for achieving gender pay equity, this year it gets kudos for linking executive compensation to how well they meet their sustainability goals."

In fact, I was quite surprised at how many manufacturing companies made the Top 10 in the table accompanying the article: 

Overall, the story was surprisingly positive:

"… while ESG critics have been cranking up the volume, the better barometer of the sustainability movement's strength comes down to a simple question: How committed are large companies to their sustainability goals? For now, most aren't backing off them, and many are making significant advancements."

As with such lists, the methodology was biased and opaque, but at least the ultimate DV seems appropriate – "operations and risk":

"The 100 companies on our list this year span market capitalizations ranging from American States Water's $2.8 billion to Nvidia's $3.4 trillion—companies that were ranked No. 73 and No. 74, respectively, on their sustainability. To evaluate all the companies, Calvert considered practices under five themes—the planet, workplace, customers, community, and shareholders—and assigned each company weightings for the categories based on what is most relevant to their business operations and risks."

It was good to see a positive narrative around a topic that has been nothing but doom-and-gloom for several months:

"The symbiosis between sustainability and efficiency at the top 100 companies often translates well for investors. In the first six years of Barron's ranking, the group outpaced the S&P 500. The 100 badly trailed the index's 25% and 26% returns including dividends in 2024 and 2023, respectively. But in those years, seven technology stocks fueled most of the S&P 500's return because the index is weighted by market capitalization."

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e  

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Top 100 Sustainable Companies: Coping with Anti-ESG Sentiment

By Karen Hube

February 24, 2025

Barron's

Late Edition – Final

18, 20, 22

https://www.barrons.com/articles/most-sustainable-companies-energy-esg-dei-4e590fda

 

Strategic CSR - Gender bias

The article in the url makes the case that gender association with firms affects consumer perceptions of those organizations:

"The study, recently published in the Journal of Marketing, finds feminine-sounding brands may be more appealing, because they are often perceived as warmer and thereby associated with traits like trustworthiness, sincerity, friendliness, tolerance and good nature."

The researchers were able to isolate specific variables that predict whether a consumer perceives a brand to be either more masculine or more feminine:

"Women's names, for instance, are longer, and are more likely to end in a vowel sound. In one part of the paper researchers studied how participants reacted to two fictitious brand names—one with feminine linguistic characters and the other with male linguistic characteristics—and found participants often preferred feminine brand names."

The benefit for firms is that the researchers found consumers are more likely to select products associated with feminine brands:

"Participants were 34% more likely to choose a female-named Nimilia YouTube channel than a masculine-named Nimeld YouTube channel. Participants were also three times as likely to choose a Nimilia hand sanitizer than a Nimeld hand sanitizer."

In addition to those made-up names, the researchers applied the same approach to ask consumer perceptions about existing brands:

"The researchers … looked at an index created by the marketing and consulting firm Interbrand, and found 55% of its top brands, including Coca-Cola, Honda and IKEA, had feminine names, 36% of the brands had masculine-sounding names, and 9% of the brands had gender-neutral names."

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

When a Brand Sounds Feminine, Consumers Get a Warm Feeling

By Lisa Ward

May 24, 2021

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

R9

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-make-a-brand-more-appealing-give-it-a-feminine-name-11621620001

 

Strategic CSR - Pink tax

The article in the url below caught my eye because of the enlightened approach to women's healthcare (and associated issues around poverty) that the Scottish government is demonstrating:

"On Nov. 24, Scotland became the first country in the world to establish through legislation that access to period products is a right, a move that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon described as groundbreaking. It caps a four-year campaign backed by a wide coalition of trade unions, women's groups, and charities and led by Monica Lennon, a member of the Scottish Parliament."

As the title of the article suggests, the issue of healthcare access in this case is secondary to the issue of poverty, which acts as a barrier to that access:

"The aim, Lennon says, is to eradicate 'period poverty'—the cost of the products can be prohibitive—and end the stigma around menstruation."

Some more detail about the legislation:

"Under The Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act, approved unanimously in the Scottish Parliament, local governments will be required to make free supplies available in public buildings such as libraries and recreation centers to anyone who wants them. (Schools, colleges, and universities in Scotland have offered free products since 2018, and the legislation compels them to keep doing so.) The Scottish government estimates that about 13% of people who have periods will take part in the program in its first year. That would put costs, which it will cover, at about £8.7 million ($11.6 million) for 2022-23. Full implementation of the program will take two years."

As the budget to implement the legislation indicates, without assistance the cost of these products can quickly rise:

"In the United Kingdom, the average woman spends about £4,800 on the products over her lifetime, according to a 2018 study … and that amount can be higher for people with medical conditions such as endometriosis, which can cause heavier periods. For households living on low incomes, the expense is a burden."

As a result, "period poverty" is a real issue for many women, even in developed countries:

"A survey of more than 1,000 women in Scotland, which helped galvanize support for the bill, found that a fifth had experienced period poverty at some point in their lives. Unable to afford tampons or pads, some resorted to using toilet paper or even rags. One in 10 said they prioritized buying food over the products."

In many countries, women's healthcare products are not given preferential taxing, and are sometimes taxed higher because of the stigma that is often attached to them:

"In some countries, they're even treated as luxury goods and taxed like cigarettes, alcohol, and jewelry. The 2020 tax rate on menstrual products was 27% in Hungary, 25% in Sweden, and 16% in Mexico. In the U.S., 30 states levy a sales tax on tampons and pads, according to the advocacy group Period Equity, and they can't be purchased with food stamps."

Such taxes are considered discriminatory by activists due to the fact that they are not applied equally throughout the population:

"A handful of countries have scrapped the tax. The first was Kenya in 2004, and others that followed include Australia, Canada, Ireland, and from January, the U.K., where 'the tampon tax' became so controversial that major supermarkets started covering the cost of it themselves in 2017."

Many of these points are related to the larger issue of a pink tax, which is defined by Wikipedia as follows:

"The pink tax is a phenomenon often attributed as a form of gender-based price discrimination, with the name stemming from the observation that many of the affected products are pink. This is sometimes but not always a literal tax. Regardless of whether tax policies of state or federal governments are involved, there is a broad tendency for products marketed specifically toward women to be more expensive than those marketed for men, despite either gender's choice to purchase either product. The NYC Department of Consumer Affairs conducted a study that concludes that women's products are typically more expensive than men's (in New York city) without reasonable cause. There are many causes of this discrepancy, including the tampon tax, product differentiation, and the belief that women are less price elastic than men."

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Scotland Takes Aim at 'Period Poverty' by Making Products Free

By Caroline Alexander

November 30, 2020

Bloomberg CityLab

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-01/scotland-wants-to-make-menstrual-products-free-to-fight-period-poverty

 

Strategic CSR - Babies

An article in The Sunday NYT last August covered the topical issue of fertility rates, which "have been dropping precipitously around the world for decades – in middle-income countries, in some low-income countries, but perhaps most markedly, in rich ones." Although not a direct response to that piece, the article in the url below shows the extent to which some companies are going in order to do their bit, while also trying to keep their employees present at work:

 

"Companies from Apple, Facebook and Tesla to Bain, KKR and Starbucks are offering employees fertility benefits."

 

Whether the move is well-intentioned or cynical, however, is up for debate:

 

"When Apple and Facebook began paying for employees to freeze their eggs in 2014, this generosity was met with cynicism. Critics dismissed it as another attempt at social engineering from Silicon Valley, no bastion of female-friendliness. Rather than empowering women, they feared, it would press them to delay motherhood; Apple would do better to install child-care facilities at its brand new headquarters."

 

I was amazed to see how far-reaching this practice has become:

 

"More than one in four large American companies now pay for some fertility treatment, … one in 20 covers egg-freezing. In America Bain, a consultancy, KKR, a private-equity firm, and Tesla, a carmaker, pay for unlimited IVF cycles (which can cost $100,000). … [Recently] Starbucks said it would raise its fertility cover to $25,000, including for baristas who work over 20 hours a week for more than six months. For part-timers on $12 an hour that can add up to twice their annual salary."

 

Apparently, firms see this as a strategic opportunity, given the nature of the U.S. healthcare system:

 

"Most American states still do not require insurers to cover infertility treatment. So companies use the benefits to differentiate themselves. This helps recruit and retain staff. … Firms keen to promote 'diversity and inclusion' see health plans with IVF or surrogacy as a way to attract LGBT employees."

 

Critics, however, point out that such policies are often adopted after a scandal of some sort and are a relatively minor plus in a general workforce that still contains a great deal of discrimination for many workers (mothers, in particular):

 

"Some companies … appear to adopt fertility benefits in response to harassment scandals. Under Armour, Uber and Vice added family-friendly policies, including generous fertility perks, following such controversies."

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Fert perks

August 10, 2019

The Economist

Late Edition – Final

51

https://www.economist.com/business/2019/08/08/more-employers-want-to-help-workers-make-babies