SUPPLY CHAIN RESOURCE COOPERATIVE

The SCRC research team has recently been conducting a series of studies, whereby we try to link improvements in share price performance, with higher scores on sustainable supply chain performance.  In a series of research studies conducted by MB students, we set about developing a set of Sustainable and Labor/Human Rights Scores, to identify companies that were doing more in this area.  And then we have been trying to link these to higher share price outcomes using regression time series.

Much to our consternation, our research efforts have not produced any statistical findings.  We seem to be coming empty every time.

I ran this by a friend, who is a private hedge fund manager, and expressed my frustration.  His response:   “I’m not surprised”.

He then related to me a recent meeting he was at with a group of institutional investors:

“Investors often state they reward sustainability.    But they don’t.  They only care about share price performance.  So it doesn’t surprise me that there was no relationship between LHR and SRM.

I stood in front of a group of investors, and I told them:  If you really care about sustainability, you would look at the companies that have these big pension fund obligations, and reward them for honoring their commitments.  You would reward companies who have good sustainability practices, even though it is costing them more money to be compliant, and you would reward companies who have lower incidents of labor human rights violations.  You would buy their stock, which would lower their cost of capital, and help them overcome the additional costs of being a sustainable enterprise.  But you don’t do that.  You penalize companies who have higher pension obligations, you sell the stock of companies who have lower margin returns, and you gripe about the companies who don’t do these things, even though you own billions of their stock!”

“And after the presentation, one of the big investor group heads came up to me, and said simply:  ”You’re right.”

So do investors really care about sustainability?  Or in the end, are they just worried about performance.  Tell me what you think….

8 Responses

  1. GoWebBaby

    September 6, 2012 @ 4:49 am

    Yes investors must have to care about the sustainability. Thanks a lot for sharing this information with us. Really useful for me.

  2. Timothy

    September 6, 2012 @ 5:07 am

    It would be interesting to know what the investor meant when he told you “you’re right”… don’t they know what they are doing and need someone to tell them because they are so used to their ways they can’t see it for themselves? Or do they know about these things and keep on regardless? I personally wish investors would truly care about sustainable enterprises, but to tell you the truth, I don’t believe they really do. Even worse, I don’t think they will care in the near future.

  3. Steve

    September 6, 2012 @ 5:52 am

    One of the things a colleague of mine is looking at is sustainability. It appears on closer examination that so much of what is touted as sustainability practices is more on the par of sustainability advocacy, versus seeing an ROI that is what the sustainability performers want. Ignored are second and third order impacts on resources in favor of the sustainable event that is customer facing and seems to have an impact.

  4. handfield

    September 6, 2012 @ 8:57 am

    Unfortunately, it is also apparent that the consumer may not care about sustainability that much either. In academic terms, this is called a response bias, which is a cognitive bias that occurs when people answer surveys. So when consumers (or investors) respond to surveys, they will always say “of course I support sustainable products (companies)” but when push comes to shove, economic issues always get in the way. As one senior supply chain executive told me, “sustainability seems to have hidden under a rock somewhere over the last five years, due to the economic recession…”

  5. Joe

    September 7, 2012 @ 1:05 am

    Sustainability is a concept that has many dimensions and complexities. Performance can also have a variety of influences, some which can be captured and others cannot. It is not easy to isolate the necessary values and control for everything.

    In terms of sustainability measures, some view these measures as “inputs” and cost money (e.g. setting up an EMS and auditing for socially responsible practices). There are also measures that can be viewed as “outputs”. This is real measures such as reduced emissions or penalties, sick workers, deaths, etc. The question is what aspect of sustainability are you measuring and what dimension is really being measured (input or output). With all these complexities and a variety of confounding metrics and variables, insignificance is the most likely outcome. Of course, I did not see the study, so these are some issues.

    Also respondent bias is clearly an issue.

  6. Simon Emmitt

    September 11, 2012 @ 12:19 pm

    Good article, I agree that classification is much more important. It is of course great that you understand what item you are purchasing in terms of manufacturer part number, but limiting the classification to manufacturer part number and UNSPSC really doesn’t get you to a complete understanding of spend. UNSPSC,etc classifications only go so far and it is likely that multiple items, that are the exact same thing, are being purchased throughout the supply chain, at sub optimal cost.

    The video below details out a process for improving that understanding of item data based on machine learning and semantic recognition (contextual understanding)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md7XXb2AIqc

    Understanding each item to a point of hierarchical uniqueness is in my mind where healthcare and spend management in general is going.

  7. Tptbd

    September 21, 2012 @ 11:58 pm

    It starts to get real when people believe these matters are strategic—that they will shape the future of the business. I use the word “sustainability” as little as possible because it’s so generic; it makes people’s eyes glaze over.

  8. handfield

    September 25, 2012 @ 6:43 pm

    Joe, I’d be happy to share the data with you. Our thesis at the moment is that sustainable efforts can provide tangible performance outcomes when they are built on a solid foundation of supply chain process maturity. This analysis is starting to prove out….which in fact leads us to believe that you can’t have a sustainable supply chain if your sourcing processes aren’t in control. Which makes sense – you can’t manage suppliers if you don’t know who they are or how much you are spending with them!



Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.