Most discussion of the impact of proposed clean energy legislation has focused on consumer-facing energy firms, such as major oil companies and electric utilities. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which has already passed the House, will affect wholesale energy companies, as well. As oil and gas remain integral to the US economy, how this sector’s firms respond to these provisions will have broad implications for consumers and investors.

Quite simply, carbon legislation will make carbon risk material. Effective carbon management will become a quantifiable competitive advantage. “Proactive measures may actually outweigh, at least initially, the potential direct costs of the proposed climate change regulation,” write Sebastian Brinkmann and Julie Hilt Hannink, authors of a new RiskMetrics study of ACES’ impact on the US independent oil & gas sector. (On Feb. 24, RiskMetrics will present a free webcast on environmental compliance costs for this sector – click here to register.)

(read more…)

A generally favorable Reuters story on Mary Schapiro’s progress as SEC chair ends on what is, to me, a very sad note:

[Redoubtable Columbia Law Professor John] Coffee said changing the SEC’s culture was a little like changing the culture of the Roman Catholic Church. “A new pope can come in, but the curia is still there and the cardinals still have their set traditions.”

(read more…)

RiskMetrics Group today announced its sixth annual Global ESG 100. The Global ESG 100 companies are selected from a pool of 2,000 firms in more than 50 countries for their effective management of environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks and opportunities.

This year’s list welcomed 35 companies, 20 of which have never been listed, including Sharp Corporation, which has strengthened its environmental performance and ramped up solar cell production. Other newcomers included Safeway Inc., Discovery Communications Inc., Abertis Infraestructuras, Danske Bank A/S, and Osaka Gas Company.

(read more…)

Most comments on the January 21 US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (1) have focused on the effects of direct contributions by corporations to candidates. Are such contributions invitations to corruption, or exercises of protected speech by persons associated in corporations?

But for those concerned about corporate governance or corporate accountability in any of its forms, Citizens United has a context and implications that go well beyond elections and freedom of speech. These challenge fundamentally the notion of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and socially responsible investing (SRI).

(read more…)