Hong Kong’s corporate governance waning

Standards and expectations have moved quickly on ESG and sustainability reporting over the past four years, and the Hong Kong Exchange (HKEx) through its “Consultation Paper on Review of the ESG Reporting Guide and Related Listing Rules” has made an attempt to participate in this evolutionary process. This paper is an update to the exchange’s previous 2015 ESG guide, and while this step seems outwardly positive, we don’t believe it warrants an epaulette on HKEx’s shoulders?

We, the Asian Corporate Governance Association (ACGA), a not-for-profit membership association chartered under the laws of Hong Kong and founded in 1999, believe that the proposed amendments do not go far enough and will leave Hong Kong well behind leading practices in other regional markets, and globally. We feel that the exchange’s approach is incremental in key areas and highly “path dependent” (ie, constrained by the framework and content of the original guide). For an international financial centre like Hong Kong something more innovative and internationally minded is needed.

To help illustrate, there are three areas where the guide could provide additional guidance; 1) board statements, 2) climate change impact, and 3) international ESG reporting standards.

On board statements, the guide could provide additional language on how it could be made more meaningful to investors and other stakeholders (ie, company specific) and how to avoid boilerplate.

On climate change impact, the wording of the new general disclosure obligation and KPI is extremely brief.  This will probably result in boilerplate statements from companies. A more helpful approach would be to reference the logical framework provided by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and encourage companies to report in line with it.

On international ESG reporting standards, the guide mentions that issuers can opt to follow various international standards in ESG reporting, however, it does not incorporate practical guidance on these. We suggest looking at Sustainability Accounting Standards Boards (SASB) of the United States and “integrated thinking” approach of the UK for guidance.

Sponsored Content

There are also some policy issues that the guide could address. For example, on “comply or explain”, the presentation of the environmental and social KPIs could be read as implying that companies must gather and report on all these metrics, despite the fact that they fall under the “comply or explain” part of the guide. We suggest that a more explicit statement emphasising that companies should apply a materiality threshold to each KPI would be better.

On anti-corruption, the disclosure is positive, however, it is not properly supported by the Hong Kong CG Code which still leaves whistleblowing policy as only a “recommended best practice” (ie, not subject to comply or explain”). This is an area where the CG Code needs to be amended soon.

On ESG assurance, companies that choose not to seek assurance should perhaps be required to provide a detailed explanation of their data gathering and analysis process. We acknowledge that the Guide does address this issue to some extent but should be more explicit.

ACGA looks forward to the exchange taking a measured and responsible approach towards improving its guide. We are concerned that Hong Kong could suffer the same fate as many other Asian markets, namely sophisticated ESG/sustainability reports standing alongside mediocre and unchanging financial and corporate governance reports.

We highlight that this is a worsening issue in many places and is readily apparent from the 100-page GRI-style reports published by some companies (often large caps) alongside annual reports that contain limited narrative to their financial statements and CG reports that are cut-and-pasted from one year to the next. To conclude, the efforts to bring in higher standards in ESG reporting in Hong Kong are necessary, however, it should not result in a weakening in other areas of disclosure.

Bilal Khan is advocacy and data manager for the Asian Corporate Governance Association.

 

Leave a Comment

La Caisse’s oil exit pays off as renewables portfolio pulls ahead of fossil fuels

La Caisse’s oil exit pays off as renewables portfolio pulls ahead of fossil fuels

Divesting from the oil sector has been a boon for La Caisse’s performance, as the Canadian pension giant says its energy investments have earned billions in value-add compared to the benchmark since the inception of its climate strategy. Head of sustainability Bertrand Millot unpacks the fund’s approach in an interview with Top1000funds.com.

Sort content by

SWFs need to move on climate

Sovereign wealth funds need to take immediate action to mitigate the effects of climate change, according to a first of its kind survey of sovereign wealth funds.

Behind OTPP’s net zero 2050 plan

Ontario Teachers' has launched its plan to reach net-zero portfolio emissions by 2050, the culmination of a decade of work by the fund in addressing climate change. Amanda White looks at the fund’s climate journey, which has significant lessons for other funds looking to move to net zero.

A new era of ESG under Biden

Against all odds, there is an air of optimism in 2021. We have entered a new era in US politics, and the inauguration of the Biden-Harris administration brings renewed hope for sustainable investment, particularly climate policy. So what can investors expect?

CFA’s future of sustainability

A huge survey by the CFA Institute of more than 7,000 industry participants has found 85 per cent of CFA Institute members now consider ESG factors in their investing, but it also reveals a big gap in the required skills, data and culture around ESG. Rebecca Fender explains.

Avoiding the pitfalls of ESG scores

Academic research has underlined that ESG scores are not able to guide issuers or investors concerned with social welfare and environmental sustainability. Erik Christiansen discusses why ESG screening is a better alternative to ESG scores.

How to avoid funding treason

The siege on the US Capitol has revealed asset owners may be investing in companies that work with or fund extremist groups. To protect their organisations, their stakeholders, and their savers from such risks, asset owners should consider revising their ESG frameworks to include disclosure and accountability policies on corporate political spending.

Previous