Environmental and social issues can be just as vital to company success

The nosedive in Lonmin’s share value over the last week is proof that the environmental, social and human rights activities of companies are linked to their financial value.

Companies have traditionally been less willing or able to make a business case for their social obligations – to people, communities and wider society – than they have for their responsibility to the environment.

Moral commitments to the environment can often have tangible cost benefits; urging customers to switch off lights and appliances reduces gas and electricity bills for customers, while asking people to switch off taps or use the same towels for an entire hotel stay conserves water and lowers costs.

By contrast, exercising due diligence, conducting human rights impact assessments, consulting with and adjusting large scale projects to meet the needs of local communities and paying the living wage are all more difficult to sell to a board because the short-term advantages and profit-making potential are less obvious. What is obvious is that such measures can engender a significant cost in the short-term.

The solution - long-term cost benefit analysis - is discouraged by the nature of our financial markets but increasingly companies are beginning to discover that the benefits of long-term responsibility are no less tangible and significant when they arise: costs such as delays and disruptions of operations; problematic relations in local labour markets; insurance and security; reduced output; diverted staff time and, perhaps most significantly in this case, reputational damage.

This week’s events at Lonmin demonstrate that the markets understand this too.  There is an increasing recognition that environmental and social factors can have a material impact on returns and should be a greater priority for companies.  In the aftermath of the financial crisis, few would dispute the need for more forward-thinking and long-term planning from multinationals and for greater cognisance of the wider impact of business. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which forced BP to cancel its dividend for the first time since the Second World War and to report its first annual loss in nineteen years, demonstrated that environmental and social issues can be vital to company success.

Yet there remains doubt in the private sector, and particularly among investors, that Government is willing to offer the expertise, support and clarity to business about their social obligations and how to meet them. Companies who are leaders in social responsibility complain that the playing field is tilted against them, and want to see greater rewards from Government for good behaviour, and greater sanctions for rule breakers. Successive governments have failed to do this.

In May this year I tabled an amendment to the Financial Services Bill, which would have sent a clear signal to companies like Lonmin that such behaviour would not be accepted by the London Stock Exchange. In October, colleagues in the Lords will put forward similar amendments that will clarify the purpose of the stock exchange, allowing the new regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, to take into account an applicant’s respect for human rights and sustainable development in protecting the integrity and respectability of the exchange.

Richard Lambert, former Director-General of the CBI, wrote in an opinion piece for the Financial Times in June 2011: ‘It never occurred to those of us who helped launch the FTSE 100 index 27 years ago that one day it would be providing a cloak of respectability and lots of passive investors for companies that challenge the canons of corporate governance, such as Vedanta, ENRC, Kazakhmys, Fresnillo. Perhaps it is time for those responsible for the index to rethink its purpose.’

The government has been handed an opportunity to correct the market failure that led to the death of 34 miners last week. It is widely accepted that a more sophisticated understanding of investment risk – one which takes longer-term sustainability issues into account – is urgently required.  If this Government is serious about its commitment to responsible capitalism and sustainable development, both companies and their investors must be engaged in the debate and the stock exchange is uniquely positioned to facilitate this process.

Lonmin's Marikana platinum mine. Photograph: Getty Images

Lisa Nandy is the MP for Wigan. She was formerly Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

UnHerd's rejection of the new isn't as groundbreaking as it seems to think

Tim Montgomerie's new venture has some promise, but it's trying to solve an old problem.

Information overload is oft-cited as one of the main drawbacks of the modern age. There is simply too much to take in, especially when it comes to news. Hourly radio bulletins, rolling news channels and the constant stream of updates available from the internet – there is just more than any one person can consume. 

Luckily Tim Montgomerie, the founder of ConservativeHome and former Times comment editor, is here to help. Montgomerie is launching UnHerd, a new media venture that promises to pull back and focus on "the important things rather than the latest things". 

According to Montgomerie the site has a "package of investment", at least some of which comes from Paul Marshall. He is co-founder of one of Europe's largest hedge funds, Marshall Wace, formerly a longstanding Lib Dem, and also one of the main backers and chair of Ark Schools, an academy chain. The money behind the project is on display in UnHerd's swish (if slightly overwhelming) site, Google ads promoting the homepage, and article commissions worth up to $5,000. The selection of articles at launch includes an entertaining piece by Lionel Shriver on being a "news-aholic", though currently most of the bylines belong to Montgomerie himself. 

Guidelines for contributors, also meant to reflect the site's "values", contain some sensible advice. This includes breaking down ideas into bullet points, thinking about who is likely to read and promote articles, and footnoting facts. 

The guidelines also suggest focusing on what people will "still want to read in six, 12 or 24 months" and that will "be of interest to someone in Cincinnati or Perth as well as Vancouver or St Petersburg and Cape Town and Edinburgh" – though it's not quite clear how one of Montgomerie's early contributions, a defence of George Osborne's editorship of the Evening Standard, quite fits that global criteria. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the full page comment piece Montgomerie got in Osborne's paper to bemoan the deficiencies of modern media on the day UnHerd launched. 

UnHerd's mascot  – a cow – has also created some confusion, compounded by another line in the writing tips describing it as "a cow, who like our target readers, tends to avoid herds and behave in unmissable ways as a result". At least Montgomerie only picked the second-most famous poster animal for herding behaviour. It could have been a sheep. In any case, the line has since disappeared from the post – suggesting the zoological inadequacy of the metaphor may have been recognised. 

There is one way in which UnHerd perfectly embodies its stated aim of avoiding the new – the idea that we need to address the frenetic nature of modern news has been around for years.

"Slow news" – a more considered approach to what's going on in the world that takes in the bigger picture – has been talked about since at least the beginning of this decade.

In fact, it's been around so long that it has become positively mainstream. That pusher of rolling coverage the BBC has been talking about using slow news to counteract fake news, and Montgomerie's old employers, the Times decided last year to move to publishing digital editions at set points during the day, rather than constantly updating as stories break. Even the Guardian – which has most enthusiastically embraced the crack-cocaine of rolling web coverage, the live blog – also publishes regular long reads taking a deep dive into a weighty subject. 

UnHerd may well find an audience particularly attuned to its approach and values. It intends to introduce paid services – an especially good idea given the perverse incentives to chase traffic that come with relying on digital advertising. The ethos it is pitching may well help persuade people to pay, and I don't doubt Montgomerie will be able to find good writers who will deal with big ideas in interesting ways. 

But the idea UnHerd is offering a groundbreaking solution to information overload is faintly ludicrous. There are plenty of ways for people to disengage from the news cycle – and plenty of sources of information and good writing that allow people to do it while staying informed. It's just that given so many opportunities to stay up to date with what has just happened, few people decide they would rather not know.