VDM_Report

A TOOL FOR
COMMUNICATING THE
BUSINESS VALUE OF
SUSTAINABILITY
THE VALUE DRIVER MODEL:
A PRI-UN Global Compact LEAD
collaboration on creating long-term value
interim report

1
The Value Driver Model
A tool for communicating the business value of sustainability
Final Version of the Interim Report Released at the UN Global Compact Leaders
Summit 2013: Architects of a Better World
December 2013

2
This report is part of a toolkit which includes presentation slides and fully developed
case examples. The toolkit is available for those interested in learning more about the
Value Driver Model and how companies can utilise it for communicating with their
shareholders and potential shareholders. For more information, please visit the UN
Global Compact website.
Acknowledgements
Global Compact LEAD – a leadership platform for companies with a strong history of
engagement in the UN Global Compact – and the Principles for Responsible Investment
(PRI) developed this publication.
Lead Consultants: David A. Lubin, Cary Krosinsky.
Project Management Team: Sarah Bostwick, Danielle Chesebrough, Michelle Lau, Caitlin
Casey.
This report draws extensively from the S3 White Paper entitled, “Breaking Through the
Sustainability Conundrum: Bridging the Gap Between Companies and Investors”, by
David A. Lubin and Daniel C. Esty (2013).
The UN Global Compact and PRI are grateful to representatives from the companies
discussed in this report for their various contributions, as well as the input investors and
industry experts provided during the production of this document.
The work presented here is part of the ESG Investor Briefing Project, a collaboration
between Global Compact LEAD and the UN-supported Principles for Responsible Investment
(PRI). Using the model of a quarterly financial call, the ESG Investor Briefing Project aims to:
• Provide a baseline model for companies to enhance their communication on how
environmental, social and governance (ESG) strategies and performance translate
into financial value.
• Help overcome the silos that often exist regarding sustainability within companies
and financial institutions, as well as between the various actors along the investment
value chain.
Not all companies featured participate in LEAD. However, their examples serve as illustrative
cases for all companies. Utilising the Value Driver Model as a tool, companies are invited to
join the ESG Investor Briefing Project and create a tailored method for communicating their
own ESG value drivers, internally and with investors.

3
About Global Compact LEAD
Launched in January 2011 to drive innovation and quality among participants of the UN
Global Compact, Global Compact LEAD recognises the critical need for supporting UN
Global Compact participants to achieve higher levels of corporate sustainability
performance – as outlined in the Global Compact’s Blueprint for Corporate
Sustainability Leadership. LEAD Participants share a commitment to implement the
Blueprint and a willingness to lead the Global Compact with strong engagement at local
and global levels. LEAD currently has 56 participants representing all regions of the
world.
About the Principles for Responsible Investment
The United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) Initiative is a
network of international investors working together to put the six Principles for
Responsible Investment into practice. The Principles were devised by the investment
community and reflect the view that ESG issues can affect the performance of
investment portfolios and therefore must be given appropriate consideration by
investors if they are to fulfil their fiduciary (or equivalent) duty. In implementing the
Principles, signatories contribute to the development of a more sustainable global
financial system. Launched in 2006 by UNEP Finance Initiative and the UN Global
Compact, the Principles provide a voluntary framework by which all investors can
incorporate ESG issues into their decision-making and ownership practices and so better
align their objectives with those of society at large.

4
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
Background ………………………………………..…………………………….………............................. 5
Purpose ………………………………………..…………………………….………....................................7
PART I
The Value Driver Model: An Overview………………………………...…………………………………..8
Moving Toward the Tipping Point……………………………………..….…..….…...……………………9
Enhancing Communication with Investors …………………….....……...….......…………………11
PART II
Operationalising the Value Driver Model ……………………..…....……..………….…………….. 12
Example Company Profiles ……………………..……...…..….………....………………………………. 19
First Steps for Measuring and Communicating S/GPR ……...………….…...….……………… 20
A Look Ahead ………………………………………..……..……..….……..……………………………………. 22

5
Introduction
Background
Investors and companies have long sought an approach to assess the business value of
sustainability.1
A variety of methods have been employed, from analyses correlating ESG
data with financial2
performance, to methodologies aimed at calculating previously
externalised social and environmental costs and benefits to get a clearer picture of
value. Several new comprehensive frameworks are in development.
The Value Driver Model provides a simple and direct approach that companies can use
to assess and communicate the financial impact of their sustainable business strategies.
While the reported financial and market performance of any firm is a product of a
complex array of internal and external factors, the goal of the Value Driver Model is to
provide a few key metrics that illustrate how a sustainable business strategy contributes
to overall performance. For many companies whose sustainable business strategies are
already yielding tangible financial benefits, employing the Value Driver Model could
represent a good first step on the path toward deepening investor interest in
sustainability as a source of business value. For firms seeking to increase the positive
financial impact from their sustainable business strategies, the Value Driver Model can
be a useful tool to align and motivate the organisation.
While sustainability issues are only one of the multiple drivers influencing corporate
financial performance, companies’ sustainable business strategies are integral and
therefore have an important role to play in assessing overall financial performance.
Accordingly, the Value Driver Model described in this report directly demonstrates how
sustainability impacts on reported financial results in the short and long term.
Business as usual is changing. While once companies saw sustainability issues as risks to
be managed, many now also see sustainability as a source of innovation that drives
growth and profitability. Demand is growing for products and services that meet long-
standing needs in new ways that save energy and natural resources, and are less
damaging to our physical and social environments. Companies are pursuing significant
opportunities that result from the new needs of a fast growing global population for
safe and reliable access to energy, food, water, housing, transportation healthcare and
more.
Many companies are also changing the ways they operate by becoming more effective
in executing strategies that promote more efficient use of human and natural resources
and thereby improve operating results.
The intent of the Value Drive Model is to make the financial impacts of responding to
these new sustainability imperatives more visible at the company level. It is a “back to
basics” approach for assessing the business impacts of sustainability by measuring three

6
key factors:
• Sustainability-advantaged growth (S/G)
Measuring a company’s revenue volume and growth rate from products they
define as sustainability-advantaged in comparison to their predecessors and/or
competitors.
• Sustainability-driven productivity (S/P)
Measuring the aggregate financial impact on a company’s cost structure as
reported by the company from all sustainability-related initiatives in a given time
period.
• Sustainability-related risk management (S/R)
Measuring performance over time on the critical metrics that a company (often
in consultation with stakeholders) believes pose meaningful risk to revenue and
reputation.
Growth, productivity and risk are common components for most investor models.
However, today it is difficult to determine how big a role, if any, sustainability plays in a
company’s performance. In addition, sustainability issues can be so integrated and
embedded in a company’s overall operations that it is not always practical to separate
them. Nevertheless, some companies have generated and identified real gains, such as a
significant shift in the proportion of their revenue coming from sustainable solutions.
Some of those firms are making these results more visible to investors.
For example, while it is useful to know that DuPont reported 9.8 per cent revenue
growth from 2007 to 2011, it is also important to understand that growth from the
firm’s portfolio of sustainability-advantaged products grew at 5.5x that rate and now
makes up 30 per cent of total revenue. (See page 9 for further details.)
Numerous studies have examined the impact of ESG issues on financial performance,
with reports such as UNEP-FI and Mercer’s “Demystifying Responsible Investment
Performance”3
and Deutsche Bank’s “Sustainable Investing: Establishing Long-Term
Value and Performance”4
examining and summarising the key findings of over 100
studies. Though the results show impressive links between broad-based sustainability
measures and financial performance, it remains challenging for investors to see the
specific ties between the execution of sustainable business strategies and revenue
and/or earnings growth.
Recent studies from leading consultancies, including Accenture5
, BCG6
and McKinsey7
attempt to describe the emergence of this growing group of companies that claim that
their sustainability strategies are producing innovations in products, services and
operations that directly tie to improvements in revenues and margins. Boston
Consulting Group labels them “harvesters” and “embracers”, McKinsey calls them

7
“leaders” and Accenture describes a “two speed world” in which “transformational
leaders” are moving quickly to generate significant business value from sustainability,
while others move at a much slower pace.
The Value Driver Model attempts to quantify these direct impacts of sustainable
business strategies. Most often the contributions to business upside can be traced to
revenue growth and positive cost-structure impacts. The intent of the model is to offer a
means of simplifying and highlighting such key impacts and to make it easier for a wide
spectrum of observers to evaluate sustainability as a noteworthy source of value
creation. Companies, such as those described in the research, are not only generating
significant value from their sustainability strategies but are also giving investors a
window into the financial value of sustainability by reporting how those strategies
impact revenues, margins and related risks.
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to advance the Value Driver Model as a useful starting
point for companies to enhance their communication of the business value of their own
sustainability. It does not replace other current or planned sources of sustainability
performance data and should be continually enhanced as both companies and investors
learn about how best to improve communications.
The Value Driver Model does not represent an exhaustive or comprehensive taxonomy
of all sustainability-related impacts, but rather a descriptive model intended to show
how companies are implementing sustainable business strategies as an evolving
business imperative. By focusing on sustainable business strategies as a source of
financial upside and protection from downside risks, it is expected that investors will be
better able to assess the value of sustainability.
The report recommends that companies begin their efforts to communicate business
value with simple metrics that reflect how a sustainable business strategy bears directly
on three key concerns of investors: 1) current and future revenue growth, 2) the
organisation’s overall productivity and operating margin and 3) the firm’s exposure to
risk.
In preparing the report, companies were examined across industries and geographies
that showed evidence of sustainable business strategies that are currently delivering
significant benefits. In the case studies developed in tandem with this report and
referenced herein, the research finds numerous examples of companies that are using
an approach to communicate the value of sustainability to shareholders and
stakeholders that closely parallel the growth, productivity and risk-drivers of the Value
Driver Model (or elements of it). Many of these companies have also chosen to
complement these simple business-oriented metrics by disclosing more
comprehensively to a wider stakeholder base via broadly accepted reporting

8
frameworks such as the UN Global Compact Communication on Progress (COP) and
Global Reporting Initiative. Yet, it should be noted that without specific efforts by these
firms to classify, measure and aggregate total impacts on revenues and costs, it would
remain very difficult to quantify financial benefits from existing comprehensive reports.
The experience and results of these companies offer insight to other companies and
investors on how to express the value of sustainable business strategies. The report
offers a path forward for companies wishing to enhance their ability to communicate
the materiality of their sustainable business strategies in measurable terms.
PART I
The Value Driver Model: An Overview
The UN-supported Principles of Responsible Investment (PRI) and the UN Global
Compact have been working to encourage the adoption of the Value Driver Model, as
shown below, as an approach for communicating the business value of sustainability
issues to investors and other interested parties. The Value Driver Model was derived
from previous efforts, including the work of Kaplan and Norton8
, Porter and C. van der
Linde9
, Esty and Winston10
, and Lubin and Esty,11
among others. Each of these observers
makes the argument that all strategies can be decomposed into core elements that
drive business growth, productivity gains and risk mitigation – hence the origin of the
value drivers concept.
The Value Driver Model is an open model that provides a structure for companies to
describe and measure how their sustainable business strategies can drive financial
results. Its direct tie to core business strategy and outcomes is the differentiator. The
model places social and governance value drivers on equal footing with environmental
drivers, though it acknowledges that in some cases they may be harder to link directly to
financial results.
The model assists firms in constructing their own metrics to describe the connection
between their top financial objectives (e.g. return on capital or return on equity) and the
following:
• Revenue growth from sustainability-advantaged products, services and/or
strategies (S/G).
• Total annual cost savings (and cost avoidance) from sustainability-driven
productivity initiatives (S/P).
• Reduced sustainability-related risk exposure that could materially impair a
company’s performance (S/R).

9
The report focuses on these three value driver metrics (referred to as S/GPR) as a place
to begin, though many other potential value drivers exist. It suggests that by first
employing metrics to describe the direct impacts of sustainable business strategy on
revenue, productivity (cost) and risk – before trying to measure more subtle, indirect
effects – a company increases its chances of engaging a broader audience. Therefore,
the model begins with an effort to measure these direct factors.
Figure 1: The Value Driver Model
Moving Toward the Tipping Point
One of the greatest challenges to effective integration of sustainability across markets is
that investor engagement on sustainability has yet to reach its tipping point. While
evidence suggests that leading companies are realising direct financial gains from
sustainable business strategies, many of those same company executives report little
progress communicating with their investors and analysts on sustainability strategies
and impacts on the bottom line.
It is not surprising that investors and analysts have difficulty assessing how sustainability
performance contributes to financial results. Reporting on sustainability factors can be
inconsistent, incomplete and at times even inaccurate, since there are no universally
accepted sustainability reporting or auditing standards as there are for financial data.
Improving the comparability, normalisation and sector specialisation of today’s
sustainability reports is desirable. But that alone will not suffice. The problem of
currently perceived relevance of the data to business strategy and outcomes must also
be overcome. Investors must be able to see a clear link between sustainability business
strategy and financial results.

10
Over time, it is possible that maintaining competitiveness in cost structures and
products will require meeting a much higher sustainability performance threshold.
Sustainability’s impact on business may well become inescapable. Consequently,
sustainability will be more fully integrated into both conventional business and
investment logic. However, as observed in previous quality and technology trends, the
greatest opportunity for investors to gain advantage is in the expansion phase of
business innovation. This is the point in the cycle when a growing number of companies
are able to differentiate from competitors and successfully scale-up innovations that
yield competitive advantage and the resulting business benefits. This often occurs years
before high performance becomes ubiquitous in the marketplace.
We are again at a unique moment in time. A growing number of firms, such as those
showcased in tandem with this report, are differentiating from their competitors and
are generating significant financial value from their sustainable business strategies. If
investors are able to more easily identify such firms through simple metrics, they may
help move the market to a broader appreciation of sustainability.
As noted in research by the UN Global Compact and Accenture, financial markets have
the potential to play an accelerating role in moving companies forward on
sustainability.12
According to a 2010 UN Global Compact/Accenture survey of 788 senior
executives, CEOs recognized that the “power of the financial markets, if harnessed,
could perhaps be the strongest driver towards companies around the world integrating
sustainability into core business”.
On the investor side, signatories to the PRI now represent more than USD 34 trillion of
assets under management, which corresponds to over 20 per cent of the world’s
investable assets. While this is significant, a 2011 analysis comparing the internal active
assets of PRI signatories with the wider global market found that around seven per cent
of all global capital is now subject to ESG integration (by PRI signatories), up from six per
cent in 2010 and four per cent in 2008, indicating that a tipping point has by no means
been reached.13

11
Figure 2: PRI
The data indicates that gaining maximum advantage from the financial market’s role as
an accelerator of positive change will likely require companies to establish the relevance
of sustainability to the successful execution of their business strategies and adequately
communicate it to shareholders and potential shareholders. Getting this positive
dynamic working requires companies to send, and investors to receive, clear signals
about the ability to drive top and bottom line performance advantage from sustainable
business strategies.
In October 2013, the PRI launched a new Reporting Framework that will require all
signatories that manage assets to disclose publicly how they are incorporating ESG
factors into their investment decision making processes and ownership practices. It
allows investors to communicate how the sustainability information disclosed by
companies is used to inform investment decision, and the responses provided by
signatories will provide useful insights for companies seeking to understand how
investors use company-reported data to make risk-reducing, value-enhancing
investment decisions.
Achieving this objective should create a window of opportunity for companies and
investors.
Therefore, an improved approach is needed.
Enhancing Communication with Investors
This report begins by directly tying sustainability performance to what investors have
already broadly agreed they need to know about companies – how they are positioned

12
to grow revenues, what strategies they are executing to boost productivity and thereby
improve profitability, and how they are tracking and managing risks that could
meaningfully impact their business results. Establishing the relevance of sustainability
may be more easily accomplished with a few, critical data points, especially if those key
metrics already appear as central to an analysis of business fundamentals.
While the performance data examined through the case studies released in tandem
with this report may not be perfectly or directly translatable into exact earnings per
share or earnings before interest and tax, the relevance of the data cited to key business
outcomes is compelling.
Through this “back to basics” approach focused on sustainability-driven revenue
growth, productivity and risk, companies, investors and analysts should be able to more
clearly see the elements of financial value and competitive differentiation that can
result from a well-executed sustainable business strategy. This would allow investors to
better make sustainability an integral part of investment analysis.
PART II
Operationalising the Value Driver Model
The figure below takes a closer look at the Value Driver Model and how it can be, and
has been, operationalised by other firms enabling them to more clearly report the
business value of sustainability.
This report seeks to evolve and operationalise the Value Driver Model as an approach to engaging
all investors based on the following assertions:
• If investors do not perceive the potential business impact of sustainability – both opportunity and
risk – they are unlikely to undertake efforts to integrate sustainability data into their existing
investment processes.
• The absence of broad based investor engagement can undermine corporate progress in
advancing sustainability.
• Investors are more likely to value and integrate sustainability data if results are framed in financial
language (potential for revenue growth, ability to drive productivity gains that improve earnings,
and capacity to track and manage key risks), provided the impacts are significant.
• If positive financial impacts linked to sustainability are significant and easily understood, then
there is likely to be greater interest by investors in considering sustainability as a business
performance driver, and greater interest by companies in advancing and featuring their
sustainable business strategies.
• Leading companies are already experimenting with more direct attempts to communicate the
business value of sustainability in common sense terms, and others can learn much from their
efforts.

13
Figure 3: Operationalising the Value Driver Model
Figure 3 describes the model’s three sustainability value drivers – growth, productivity
and risk – and their subcomponents. The following sections look closer at each and how
the concepts have been operationalised.
The Value Driver Model is intended to provide a means for companies to describe (and
measure, when appropriate) the enablers of sustainability-driven growth, productivity
and risk mitigation. This is accomplished via any and all relevant channels, including
routine quarterly and/or other regular announcements and presentations, roadshows
and reports. The model seeks to provide companies and investors with the best possible
guidance on how sustainable business strategy contributes to measurable gains along
the three primary dimensions. An initial example of operationalising the model through
creation of each of the S/GPR metrics is also presented. The report examines how the
featured firms use variations of these measures in an effort to communicate the
business value of sustainability.
Growth
Sustainability-advantaged revenue growth depends upon variations of the following
four key sub-components:

14
• Expanding market share based on enhanced demand for sustainability-
advantaged products.
• Gaining sales to new customers and geographies based on brand and reputation
for sustainability product leadership, especially where those attributes are
differentiators.
• Developing innovative sustainability-advantaged products and services that
better meet customer needs while minimising unwanted social or environmental
consequences and/or enhancing desirable social and environmental outcomes.
• Implementing a long-term strategy and plan, along with the required
investments, to deliver sustainability-advantaged growth.
Measuring sustainability-advantaged revenue growth
Most investors want to know at least two essential facts about a firm’s sustainability-
advantaged revenue growth. Firstly, what is the current sustainability quality of revenue
or the absolute percentage of total sales accounted for by products or services
designated as sustainability-advantaged either by the company itself or a reliable third
party? In the cases profiled in tandem with this report, the absolute percentage of
sustainability-advantaged revenue ranged from seven to over 40 per cent and in all
cases represented a meaningful component of the product mix.
Secondly, investors want to know the growth rate of sustainable products compared to
the firm’s overall growth rate (termed S/G). In the case we examined, S/G values ranged
from 2x to more than 25x the growth rate of the company overall, making sustainability-
advantaged growth a critical component of the overall business momentum and the
growth strategy of the firm. As the proportion of total revenue categorised as
sustainability-advantaged climbs, the comparative growth rate (S/G) falls. However,
even in the Pirelli and DuPont cases cited above, where sustainability-advantaged
revenues are above 30 per cent of total revenue, S/G scores of 2.2x and 5.5x overall
revenue suggests that recent and likely future growth is highly related to the success of
these products.
Defining the specific profit contribution of sustainability-advantaged products goes
beyond what is needed to establish investor interest and the scope of this report.
Providing a clear picture of how a company’s revenue composition is significantly
changing is sufficient to demonstrate the importance of this dynamic for investors.
Example: Siemens (S/G)14
Engineering company Siemens has committed to revenue growth from sustainability.
The company’s fiscal year 2012 revenue saw 42 per cent, or over EUR 33 billion, come

15
from its environmental portfolio for an estimated S/G calculation of 2.2x. As a result, the
company reports it is on track to achieve its target of EUR 40 billion in revenue from its
environmental portfolio by 2014. As of its most recent reporting, the company’s
environmental portfolio comprised contributions of 70 per cent from energy efficiency
solutions, 22 per cent from renewable energy and 8 per cent from environmental
technologies, such as those related to air pollution control.
Productivity
Like revenue growth, sustainability-driven productivity gains ultimately flow through to
the top metrics that the firm uses to measure financial results. Sustainability-driven
productivity gains may come from three key primary sources:
• Operational efficiencies, resulting in cost savings and/or cost avoidance from
better use of natural resources, reduced wastes and/or finding better alternative
materials with lower costs and impacts.
• Human capital management, reducing the cost of attracting and retaining top
talent to the firm as a result of the firm’s commitment to sustainability and the
employees’ perceived value of that commitment, as well as increased worker
productivity due to skills and safety training, and inclusive and equitable work
environments.15
• Margin improvement, potentially increasing price and volumes from customer
perception of enhanced value from sustainability–advantaged products.
Measuring sustainability-driven productivity gains
Investors want to know the aggregate cost savings and/or cost avoidance, along with
any other directly attributable benefits from the implementation of the company’s
sustainable business strategy. It is no doubt of interest to read in a sustainability report
that a new factory or facility has reduced its energy use or employee turnover by a
certain percentage. However, investors need to know how sustainable business strategy
impacts the overall cost structure of the business in total dollars and ratios (cost per unit
produced, or cost per worker hour or per dollar of capital) for a given reporting period
and how those gains trend over time.
It is up to investors to determine what they believe to be the thresholds for assessing
the significance of such savings. In the cases developed in tandem with this report,
examples typically ranged from one to 15 per cent savings on total costs. Cost structure
improvements in these ranges could be highly material. However, the results need to be
interpreted in the context of the overall business performance. What is of particular
interest is that the companies examined for this report, which have disclosed data that
has been translated into an S/P rating, have moved to systematic reporting of how their

16
total operating margins are impacted by sustainability-driven operational
improvements; thereby making it easier for investors to evaluate the scale and
significance of sustainable business strategies on the bottom line.
Example: Unilever (S/P)16
Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan aims to double growth while halving the company’s
greenhouse gas, water and waste footprint across the entire lifecycle of its products.
Over the past four years, the company’s productivity savings have reached almost USD
400 million as it prepares for this plan. Unilever estimates its eco-efficiency programmes
have saved about USD 130 million in energy costs, USD 240 million in materials
expenses, USD 22 million in water expenditure and USD 13 million in waste disposal.
Risk
Like sustainability-advantaged growth and sustainability-driven productivity,
sustainability–related risk management (S/R) provides investors with a few critical,
measurable data points that reflect management’s best assessment of exposure to risks
that could imperil key business objectives. Many firms disclose a wealth of risk metrics
through their existing corporate responsibility reporting model. However, connecting
with investors requires firms to define their critical metrics that investors can track over
time, observing progress in risk factors such as:
• Operational and regulatory risk management: decreasing levels of
environmentally critical and/or constrained resource use; limiting business
interruptions and risk of losing the license to operate; reducing emissions of key
pollutants or toxins; and other areas that could expose the firm to regulatory
actions or penalties, as well as increasing adherence to established
sustainability-related operating standards, including results of related audits and
certifications.
• Supply chain risk: increasing assurance via assessments, audits and/or
certifications that the firm’s suppliers are providing reliable, responsibly
produced products and services in accordance with the firm’s policies, industry
codes and international standards.17
• Reputational risks: decreasing exposure to reputational risks arising from a
variety of actions including, fines, negative legal judgments, boycotts, public
protests and/or negative media attention through implementation of proactive
policy and procedures that limit the risk of social and environmental harm.
Measuring sustainability-related risk management

17
For investors, the most important risk metrics are those that pose material business
risks to revenue and reputation, that clearly tie to the business model and that are
increasing or declining along with the trajectory of the business. While absolute
increases and decreases in sustainability-related risk factors like GHG emissions are
important, many investors want to understand the relative changes in risk intensity as
reflected in dimensions such as:
• Water and stressed water intensity of revenue
The use of the amount of water (and water in resource constrained geographies)
consumed per dollar of revenue.
• GHG (or other key emissions) intensity of revenue
The firm’s capacity to manage risks (and potential cost which may be
internalized in the future) per dollar of revenue.
• Energy intensity
The firm’s exposure to potential availability and cost volatility per dollar of
revenue.
• Waste recovery
The firm’s capacity to limit exposure to factors such as raw materials price
volatility and escalating waste disposal costs and risks by measuring the
proportion of total waste produced that is recovered for reuse.
• Accidents
Frequency and intensity (cost) of accidents per dollar of revenue.
• Sustainability-related product risk intensity
Total company costs arising from social and environmental damages due to use
or manufacture of company products as a percentage of revenue. This could
include specifically quantified loss of revenue from social problems in a
company’s supply chain. A growing number of companies are carefully
monitoring the social performance of their supply chain for this reason.
• Uncovered supplier risk
The percentage of total dollars paid to suppliers not covered by company
approved sustainability-related risk assessment, including ESG factors
• Human rights risk
The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights provide that companies
should conduct human rights due diligence and remediate adverse human rights
impacts that they cause or contribute to. As a result, companies are beginning to
carefully monitor their direct impacts on human rights as well as those linked to
their products and services through business relationships. Having an

18
operational-level grievance mechanism, through which complaints and company
responses are tracked, is a key human rights risk mitigation tool.18
• Manufacturing and operational process risk certification
The percentage of company processes not certified as meeting or exceeding
independent sustainability-related standards.
These represent the types of sustainability risk measurement most relevant to investors.
The specific metrics can only be defined in the context of a company’s operations and
business eco-system.
Example: The Coca-Cola Company (S/R)19
To create their product, beverage companies such as The Coca-Cola Company require
access to fresh water, which can be scarce in areas of the developing world, and not
addressing this resource constraint poses a significant potential risk to revenue and
profitability. As a result, Coca-Cola has focused on water management as a business-
critical aspect of its sustainability efforts. The company implemented locally-relevant
water resource protection sustainability programmes in 2012 and is currently
performing hundreds of source water vulnerability assessments. Coca-Cola has achieved
20 per cent gains in water efficiency from 2004 to 2011, and the company and its more-
than 250 bottling partners in over 200 countries have committed to achieve an
additional 25 per cent in water efficiency gains by 2020. Furthermore, Coca-Cola has a
water neutrality goal of returning to communities the equivalent water volume that it
uses in finished products and production by 2020. In terms of results, Coca-Cola
measures water use efficiency, or litres (L) of water used per litre of product produced.
This performance metric has been improving annually, with the company reporting
2.12L of water per litre of product produced in 2012, down from 2.70L in 2004 – an
improvement of 21.4 per cent over the previous nine years. Coca-Cola’s compliance
with internal wastewater standards has also improved with time, increasing from 85 to
98 per cent. In addition, its percentage of water replenished is 52 per cent, up from 35
per cent in 2011, achieved through community water projects, such as watershed
protection, community water access, rainwater harvesting, reforestation and
agricultural water use efficiency. These calculations allow Coca-Cola to demonstrate its
sustainability progress and strategic management of risks.

19
Example Company Profiles
This report is part of a larger toolkit for companies, which includes presentation slides
and fully developed case examples. The cases provide examples of companies that, like
DuPont and Pirelli highlighted below, report key aspects of the Value Driver Model to
their shareholders and other interested parties. On the UN Global Compact website20
,
detailed case studies are available for the Dow Chemical Company, DuPont, Pirelli,
Phillips, Swiss Re, as well as Boeing, Praxair, Reckitt Benckiser and Schneider Electric.
The website also includes snapshots of companies that quantify gains on one or more
dimensions of the Value Driver Model. Some of those featured include Alcoa, BASF, BT,
The Coca-Cola Company, General Electric, Fujitsu, Kimberly-Clark, NEC, Office Depot,
Siemens, Toshiba and Unilever.
The following profiles of DuPont and Pirelli show how each has used elements of the
Value Driver Model to communicate business value.
DuPont
Today, DuPont’s business focuses on responding to three global challenges: 1) ensuring
food security for a growing population, 2) discovering new solutions to meet energy
needs and 3) working to insure the protection of life through cleaner and safer
chemistry and materials. Its approach to meeting each of these objectives is driving
financial value. Revenue from DuPont’s products designated as sustainability-
advantaged, now at over 30 per cent of total revenue (more than USD 10 billion), is
Direct versus Indirect Value Drivers
The Value Driver Model is composed of two types of drivers: direct and indirect. Direct drivers are
those with links to top or bottom line results that require no intervening variables to have a measurable
effect. For example, with respect to revenue growth, sales of sustainability-advantaged products is
considered a direct driver and R&D spending an indirect driver because the former translates into
revenue and the latter presumes the company has some intervening process for effectively converting
R&D into revenue. Similarly, productivity improvements can result from direct drivers, such as reduced
material or energy costs, reduced employee absenteeism and turnover, or process changes. This is
distinct from indirect gains related to brand and reputational benefits of community engagement, for
example, which may indirectly translate to being an attractive employer, and therefore reduce
recruitment costs, or to increased customer loyalty, which may increase customer base and reduce
marketing costs. This initial effort to identify value driver innovators has focused on direct drivers of
revenue growth, productivity gains and risk mitigation. This is not to say that indirect value drivers are
not important factors for companies to measure and report. It is believed that if investors are better
able to see the direct links first, then increased attention and interest may follow on the various indirect
sources of value.

20
growing at a rate 5.5x faster than the company overall. In addition, internally-generated
productivity gains from sustainability-related initiatives saved the company
approximately 10 per cent, or USD 300 million, on their 2010 operating income of USD 3
billion. DuPont has also reported less exposure to key sustainability-related risks to its
business via manufacturing process certifications and reductions of toxic emissions and
water use, especially in geographic areas where water supplies are scarce or
constrained.
Pirelli
Pirelli launched its Green Performance Strategy in 2009 and has since seen rapid growth
in its sustainability-enhanced tyres. This class of newly designed products, meeting
European Union standards, now accounts for 45 per cent of revenue and is growing at
2.2x the rate of Pirelli’s overall sales. Advanced sustainability research has proved
valuable, also. Pirelli has developed a process to use rice husk silica – a waste product
from food processing – to provide a less costly, higher performing and more
environmentally-friendly replacement for hazardous silica formerly required in the
production process. With a 50 per cent future cost saving on this key raw material, the
company believes that significant productivity gains will be realised as this technology is
rolled out across the firm. In combination with an investment in sustainability-related
risk management, Pirelli’s sustainable business strategy aims to translate into significant
and measurable benefits for shareholders.
These companies are providing a broad range of sustainability data to stakeholders and
also represent examples of companies that have framed sustainability in mainstream
value terms aligned with the Value Driver Model.
First Steps for Measuring and Communicating S/GPR
Focus on sustainability-advantaged growth
The challenge of measuring and communicating S/G is one of categorisation of revenue.
General Electric internally developed rigorous criteria for its ecomagination product
portfolio, which helps customers reduce their environmental impact,21
and a structured,
verified process for inclusion and removal of products from the portfolio based on their
sustainability performance relative to alternatives. Other firms have similarly
categorised their revenues with a wide variety of internally and externally developed
and/or validated models. The firms profiled as part of this broader project use a wide
variety of categorisation methods that fall under the sustainability-advantaged revenue
umbrella and each has been careful to describe how their categorisation models
represent important distinctions.
Firms will need to invest time and energy to develop an appropriate categorisation
model, implement an external system or even adopt another firm’s approach in order

21
for investors to understand how their sustainable business strategies drive current and
future revenues. In addition, they will need to assess the current and projected market
demand for such products and analyse how their research and development
expenditures are supporting sustainability-advantaged revenue growth.
The initial formulation of S/G is ideally suited for multi-line or multi-product firms that
are making a transition to products designed to offer some enhanced sustainability
value. Over time, the S/G metric gives us a view of the scale and pace of this transition.
For firms that have a product or service portfolio that may be considered majority or
100 per cent sustainable (e.g. solar energy firms or pharmaceuticals), an S/G analysis
could highlight other factors, such as the success of programmes developed or
supported by the firm, to bring products to markets or populations not previously
served. This success could be measured in terms of revenue percentages and might be
an important part of an overall growth strategy.
Focus on sustainability-driven productivity
Calculating an S/P score requires aggregating data from disparate groups and functions
across the enterprise. The challenge for most firms is going beyond anecdotal accounts
of savings associated with a project. Investors cannot estimate the scale or scope of
these gains and so do not pursue this aspect of the company’s strategy as an important
driver of cost structure improvement. The key challenge is understanding which cost
savings to include and to capture them in a timely and consistent fashion in order to be
relevant to investors analysing cost structure issues. Today, many companies, even
those with substantial experience executing sustainability strategy, are unable to
answer the question, “How much did we reduce our costs this year based on total gains
from our sustainability-related initiatives?”
With modern enterprise resource planning (ERP) technologies and software, aggregating
costs across the enterprise is a solvable problem, so long as management has the will to
do it. The potential for material gains varies broadly across industries. While investors
should be concerned with the level of resource efficiency in every firm, this factor may
not materially affect all companies’ bottom lines. For some, the costs savings and
potential gains are more indirect, such as talent acquisition and retention, and
computing solid estimates of impact is difficult. The case studies accompanying this
report show how some firms have addressed these problems and, in many cases, now
report material cost reductions based on sustainable business strategy. As is true in
many areas of management, the discipline of systematic reporting often enhances
management’s ability to drive gains.
Focus on sustainability-related risk management
The challenge in measuring S/R is one of focus. For investors to value a firm’s
sustainability-related risk management, it must be seen in the context of potential

22
revenue, profitability and/or reputational risks that could ultimately impact the top and
bottom line. While it is not possible to predict all material risks, it is necessary to reduce
the very large risk portfolio to those critical few that are the focus for reporting and
tracking progress. Less may be more, provided there is a clear connection between
those deemed critical and the likelihood and potential significance of the risks they
represent.
The companies whose sustainability-related risk management reporting has been
examined in this report and the accompanying case studies have focused on a mix of
outcomes and process factors that describe both what they have done to reduce key
risks such as GHG emissions, as well as how they are operating to reduce potential risk
exposure, such as implementing audits and mandating standards within their own and
their supply chain operations.
There are a number of considerations for companies when determining the materiality
or relevance of a potential risk to their revenue or reputation. One common approach
supported by the International Integrated Reporting Framework is that matters that
have high likelihood of occurrence or larger magnitude of effect should be prioritised.22
On some issues, more specific guidance may be found. For example, with regard to
human rights risk, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights emphasise that
the severity of adverse human rights impact is defined by its scale (gravity of impact),
scope (number of individuals impacted) and irremediable nature.23
For many
companies, identifying and engaging with key stakeholders, including employees,
communities, policy-makers and others is a critical first step to determining the most
material risks to revenue and productivity.
A Look Ahead
Many companies, like those described in this report, already communicate material
financial benefits like enhanced revenue growth, productivity gains and risk mitigation
from their sustainable business strategies. If reported consistently, in a timely way and
through the lens of financial modelling, more investors will likely pay closer attention to
sustainability data. This report has highlighted a few of the firms that offer more direct
signals of how sustainable business strategy drives business results. It is intended to
connect to other work being done by colleagues around the world, including
complementary points of reference, such as the UN Global Compact’s COP, PRI’s
Reporting Framework, the Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting
Guidelines, the International Integrated Reporting Framework and ongoing work by the
Sustainable Accounting Standards Board in the United States and the Delphi Project in
the European Union.
Given the expected steady rise of climate change, regulatory pressure, changing
consumer attitudes and buying behaviours, sustainable business strategy is expected to
play an even greater role going forward. As companies become better able to

23
communicate to investors how they are gaining material business advantages from
these trends, investors are likely to reward those leaders with a sustainability premium.
To capitalise on this opportunity, companies must systematically capture and report the
sustainability-driven business impacts they are already seeing – and those they aim to
generate – in terms that investors comprehend. Likewise, first movers in the investor
community can take advantage of significant upsides before the rest of the field.
Beneficiaries are already starting to emerge. For example, Pirelli has reported a
significant shift in ownership patterns since advancing their growth-oriented sustainable
business strategy. Between 2009 and 2013, growth-oriented investor ownership, as
defined by Pirelli, has climbed from 37 to 71 per cent. The number of analysts covering
the company has risen from 12 to 25 and the average target price has doubled in four
years. The Pirelli story is gaining attention and the company believes its sustainable
business strategy is a key value driver for the business.
With many institutional investors and companies not yet focused on how sustainability
is driving short- and long-term business results, there is an opportunity ahead for those
who are ready to bridge this gap.

24
The United Nations Global Compact Office makes no representation concerning, and
does not guarantee, the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of any
statement, information, data, finding, interpretation, advice or opinion contained within
this publication. The inclusion of company examples does not in any way constitute an
endorsement of these organisations by the United Nations Global Compact Office. The
material in this publication may be quoted and used provided there is proper
attribution.
PRI DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this report is meant for the purposes of information only
and is not intended to be investment, legal, tax or other advice, nor is it intended to be
relied upon in making an investment or other decision. This report is provided with the
understanding that the authors and publishers are not providing advice on legal,
economic, investment or other professional issues and services. PRI Association and the
PRI Initiative are not responsible for the content of websites and information resources
that may be referenced in the report. The access provided to these sites or the provision
of such information resources does not constitute an endorsement by PRI Association or
the PRI Initiative of the information contained therein. Unless expressly stated
otherwise, the opinions, recommendations, findings, interpretations and conclusions
expressed in this report are those of the various contributors to the report and do not
necessarily represent the views of PRI Association, the PRI Initiative or the signatories to
the Principles for Responsible Investment. The inclusion of company examples does not
in any way constitute an endorsement of these organisations by PRI Association, the PRI
Initiative or the signatories to the Principles for Responsible Investment. While we have
endeavoured to ensure that the information contained in this report has been obtained
from reliable and up-to-date sources, the changing nature of statistics, laws, rules and
regulations may result in delays, omissions or inaccuracies in information contained in
this report. Neither PRI Association nor the PRI Initiative is responsible for any errors or
omissions, or for any decision made or action taken based on information contained in
this report, or for any loss or damage arising from or caused by such decision or action.
All information in this report is provided “as-is”, with no guarantee of completeness,
accuracy, timeliness or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and
without warranty of any kind, expressed or implied.
1
This report uses the UN Global Compact’s definition of sustainability, which is “the delivery of long-term value in financial,
social, environmental, and ethical terms”.
2
Financial performance refers to any corporate security and not only specifically to equities
3
“Demystifying Responsible Investment Performance”. UNEP-FI and Mercer. (2007).
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/Demystifying_Responsible_Investment_Performance_01.pdf
4
Fulton, Mark and Kahn, Bruce M. and Sharples, Camilla, “Sustainable Investing: Establishing Long-Term Value and
Performance”. June 12, 2012.
https://www.db.com/cr/de/docs/Sustainable_Investing_2012.pdf
5 “The UN Global Compact-Accenture. CEO Study on Sustainability 2013. Architects of a Better World”.
http://www.accenture.com/Microsites/ungc-ceo-study/Documents/pdf/13-1739_UNGC%20report_Final_FSC3.pdf
6 “Sustainability: The ‘Embracers’ Seize Advantage”. 2011.
http://www.bcg.com/documents/file71538.pdf
7 “The Business of Sustainability: McKinsey Global Survey Results”. 2011.
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/energy_resources_materials/the_business_of_sustainability_mckinsey_global_survey_
results.

25
8
R.S. Kaplan and D.P. Norton, “The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance,” Harvard Business Review.
January-February 1992, pp.71-79, and R.S. Kaplan and D.P. Norton, “The Execution Premium: Linking Strategy to
Operations for Competitive Advantage.” Boston: HBS Press. 2008.
9
M.E. Porter and C. van der Linde, “Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship.” The
Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, no. 4. Autumn 1995, pp. 97-118.
10
Esty and Winston, “Green to Gold.” Yale University Press, 2005.
11
D.A. Lubin and D.C. Esty, “The Sustainability Imperative,” Harvard Business Review. May 2010, pp. 2-9.
12
“A New Era of Sustainability – UN Global Compact-Accenture CEO Study 2010”. September 2010.
13
“PRI Report on Progress”. PRI. 2011.
http://d2m27378y09r06.cloudfront.net/viewer/?file=wp-content/uploads/2011_report_on_progress.pdf
14
"Annual Report 2012." Siemens. 2013.
<http://www.siemens.com/investor/pool/en/investor_relations/siemens_ar_2012.pdf>.
"Annual Report 2011." Siemens. 2012.
< http://www.siemens.com/annual/11/_pdf/Siemens_AR2011_CompanyReport.pdf>. "Driving Sustainability: Sustainability
“Report 2012." Siemens. 2013.
<http://www.siemens.com/sustainability/pool/en/current-reporting/siemens-sr2012.pdf>.
15
See “Investing in Women’s Employment: Good for Business, Good For Development, International Finance
Corporation”. October 2013.
http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/5f6e5580416bb016bfb1bf9e78015671/InvestinginWomensEmployment.pdf?MOD=AJ
PERES
16
"Unilever Sustainable Living Plan, Progress Report 2012." Unilever. 2013.
<http://www.unilever.com/images/USLP-Progress-Report-2012-FI_tcm13-352007.pdf>.
"Unilever's Sustainability Program Saves $395M since 2008." GreenBiz. 18 April 2013.
<http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2013/04/18/unilever-sustainability-program-saves-395m>.
17
For further resources on supply chain risk management, see here: http://supply-chain.unglobalcompact.org/; and
“Supply Chain Sustainability: A Practical Guide for Continuous Improvement”.
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/supply_chain/SupplyChainRep_spread.pdf.
18
For further guidance on grievance mechanisms as a tool to track and prevent adverse human rights impact, see
resources on the Global Compact’s website here:
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Issues/human_rights/guidance_material_continued.html#grievance
19
"Coca-Cola 2011/2012 Sustainability Report”. Coca-Cola. November 2012.
<http://www.coca-colacompany.com/sustainabilityreport/performance-highlights.html#section-activehealthyliving>.
Company Correspondence with Jennifer Ragland, November 15, 2013.
20
See http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Issues/financial_markets/esg_investor_briefings.html
21
Interview with Steve Ramsey, 2013
22
“Materiality: Background Paper for <IR>”. International Integrated Reporting Council. March 2013.
23
“The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: An Interpretive Guide”. UN OHCHR. 2011. p.19.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/HR.PUB.12.2_En.pdf

VDM_Report

More Related Content

VDM_Report