- The coronavirus pandemic is highlighting why stakeholders matter, less than a year after moves by business and industry to shift from a focus on shareholders.
- Amid the pandemic, insufficient consideration paid to all stakeholders in decision-making is backfiring on a number of companies. In contrast, other companies are stepping up.
- While most of our rating actions since the beginning of the pandemic have been driven by the impact of the lockdown on revenue and cash flow, we expect that stakeholder management will become a factor in the future.
- Corporations that better embed stakeholder considerations in their decision-making and strategy will limit unintended consequences and be more resilient over time.
In August 2019, the U.S. Business Roundtable adopted a new standard for corporate responsibility. It changed its "Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation" to a broad commitment to all stakeholders--customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and shareholders--from shareholder primacy. In a similar vein, France in May 2019 enacted the PACTE law that obliges corporate management to take into consideration "social and environmental issues" alongside other objectives and encourages them to enshrine social objectives in their purpose ("raison d'être") in their bylaws.
Such developments, while welcomed by many, were sometimes received with a degree of skepticism. Would companies really translate these principles into a fundamental change in the way they operate? Would these principles contribute to a more sustainable and prosperous future?
Less than a year later, the coronavirus pandemic is highlighting why stakeholders matter. Insufficient consideration paid to all stakeholders in decision-making is backfiring on a number of companies. In contrast, other businesses are taking actions that may ultimately strengthen employee engagement, brand, and reputation. While nearly all the rating actions we've taken during this time have been driven by the impact of the lockdown on revenue and cash flow, we believe that might change. We expect that differences in stakeholder management will ultimately play into a number of future rating actions, especially where companies differentiate themselves materially from their industry peers and this in turn has a bearing on creditworthiness that is observable over time. Corporations that better embed stakeholder considerations in their decision-making and strategy will likely limit unintended consequences and be more resilient over time.
Governments--and by extension taxpayers--have provided massive amounts of support to prevent economic collapse, which have raised expectations for corporations. At a time when our economies and our societies confront an unprecedented shock, there is a widespread expectation that companies must consider every stakeholder when responding to the challenge. By ignoring certain stakeholders, a company that chooses to act as if nothing has changed is likely to suffer the consequences—as it seems like everyone is watching. The attempt by the U.K. retailer, Sports Direct, to keep its shops open despite the country's lockdown, with the argument that it was an essential service, could have been considered a rational business decision under normal circumstances. However, after experiencing a backlash from staff and the media, the company had to back down. Large listed corporations, willingly or reluctantly, are reducing share buybacks, cutting dividends, and reducing the compensation of top executives. The appearance of unduly profiting from the pandemic or excessively bowing to shareholder interests could result in not only reputational damage but also extend to undermining a company's license to operate. It is yet uncertain how much the COVID-19 crisis will lead to lasting fundamental changes to the social contract between society and corporations, but it is likely that effective stakeholder management will become increasingly important for companies to successfully operate in a world of weakened public finances, social scars, and environmental degradation.
Conflicting stakeholder priorities are sometimes difficult to manage
Many businesses have stepped up, embracing a broader stakeholder perspective. At a time when layoffs are surging and people lack access to health care, a number of financially strong corporations have expanded their employees' social benefits, providing extended paid sick leave, enhanced health coverage, and child care. In a similar vein, other businesses, whose financial viability is not at stake, have decided to forego downsizing for now. For example, Danone's CEO publicly committed to avoiding layoffs and to guaranteeing 100% of salaries from April to June. Employee safety concerns also prompted some businesses to ask their staff to work from home, ahead of compulsory lockdowns, or even temporarily close their operations for safety reasons. Others, perceived to have exposed their employees to safety risks by keeping open their operations, faced internal and public controversy. Amazon had to close its six French warehouses following a ruling by the French court of Nanterre for failure to take sufficient health and safety measure to protect its employees. Conflicting stakeholder priorities, even for providers of essential goods and services, are sometimes difficult to manage.
Supportive actions have also been taken by corporations to help weaker suppliers or customers cope with the economic shock. Unilever's full value chain approach lead it to provide €500 million in payment relief to its suppliers. Conversely, in light of the extraordinary circumstances, banks have been waiving or flexing loan covenants for corporations hard hit by the lockdown. What's more, companies have been under scrutiny to keep their prices flat despite supply shortages and soaring demand, to keep goods and services affordable so that society can better respond to the heath and economic consequences of the pandemic and lockdowns. In France, public controversy emerged over cases of soaring hand sanitizer prices, leading the government to implement price controls.
Beyond employees, suppliers, and customers, we have seen examples in many countries of businesses embarking in active community engagement, making donations to hospitals and charities, switching production lines to address the shortfall of hand sanitizer, protection masks, and ventilators, providing logistical support to facilitate the shipment of essential products, or simply ensuring the continuous provision of essential services. What's more, a number of businesses have publicly committed to selling at cost the medical attire necessary for treating COVID-19.
At a time when growing fragmentation threatens the stability and resilience of our societies, we think that corporations that are contributing to social cohesion might come out of this period stronger in the eyes of all stakeholders. Conversely, companies seen as having focused excessively on short-term shareholder interests at the expense of other stakeholders may undermine their licenses to operate. Many companies may need to slash costs and shed workers to stay in business, but even in these instances, stakeholder management will be important. The immediate positive or negative bottom-line effects of decisions they take today may unleash large, negative or positive second-round effects.
Besides helping to address the pandemic, stakeholder-focused corporations are creating new ties with stakeholders in civil society and therefore might avoid serious reputational and financial repercussions. One legacy of COVID-19, therefore, may be greater awareness of the benefits of the stakeholder approach.
- The ESG Lens On COVID-19, Part 1, April 20, 2020
- ESG Evaluations Remain Unchanged For Now In Light Of COVID-19, April 8, 2020
- The Role Of Environmental, Social, And Governance Credit Factors In Our Ratings Analysis, Sept. 12, 2019
- Environmental, Social, And Governance Evaluation Analytical Approach, April 12, 2019
- How To Navigate The ESG Risk Atlas, April 11, 2019
- How We Apply Our ESG Evaluation Analytical Approach, April 10, 2019
- The ESG Advantage: Exploring Links To Corporate Financial Performance, April 8, 2019
This report does not constitute a rating action.
|Head of Sustainable Finance:||Bernard De Longevialle, Paris (33) 1-4075-2517;|
|Secondary Contact:||Michael Wilkins, London (44) 20-7176-3528;|
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.
Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact S&P Global Ratings, Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org.