12.2.2.8 A more continuous flow of relevant and compatible information

The availability of relevant and compatible information on corporate BES impact and dependence is limited. ESG Agencies need information on a company level in order to evaluate the actual risks for a specific company. Furthermore, they should be able to provide regular updates to their customers.

Asset managers prefer to receive a continuous flow of information. This implies that the ESG Agencies in turn also need frequent and up-to-date information on companies. An annual sustainability report containing information on a company's activities in the previous fiscal year does not suffice. Fresh information can sometimes be found in the media and NGO publications, although this usually focuses on controversies.1 It appears difficult to collect in a systematic way 'BES information' on 'good' companies, and even more so on ' mediocre' companies. Also, BES information regarding the BES performance of mid-caps2 is difficult to acquire, because NGOs tend to focus on 'the big players' and mid-cap companies are pressured less to disclose information. Furthermore, information on BES impacts in less populated and less developed countries is extremely scarce, due to the fact that information is published in local languages and due to the fact that such information has limited access to the internet. And, finally, information about BES impacts in the supply chain is also scarcely available.

The disclosure of biodiversity impacts by companies themselves is thus limited, whilst the quality thereof is often questionable. The GRI indicators on biodiversity3 are not commonly used by companies. The majority of the interviewees asserted that the biodiversity indicators do not provide investors with useful information which can be used in their investment decision-making process.4

ESG Agencies circumvent this lack of concrete information on companies' conduct in relation to BES by applying ' a process-based approach'. They assess company policies and management systems, hence judging the ability of companies to manage possible impacts. This information is considered to be a proxy for the quality of the actual company performance. Other approaches used are providing sector-level instead of company-level reports, or assessing the reputation of companies, based on media coverage. A number of the interviewees stated that they would be in favour of a 'Biodiversity Disclosure Project', like the Carbon Disclosure Project. The Forest Footprint Disclosure Project (FFD)5 was also enthusiastically welcomed by several of them. Others, however, were afraid that the impact of 'yet another disclosure project' might be disappointing, and could even be counter-productive to the success of information-disclosure projects in general.