Vadim bogulov Mf Bnq U Oz q Y unsplash

Double-materiality is only useful when it is not associated with revenues

The Impaakt Team

9 min Read Time | September 26th 2022

750 x 500

Why revenues are a red herring when it comes to impact double materiality

Why is using a gauge like revenue to determine the importance of an impact issue somewhat - flawed?

If the product or service that has caused the impact accounts for only a small revenue for the company, why would this correlate with the importance of the relative impact on people or the planet?

CEO and Impaakt co-founder, Bertrand Gacon, spoke to Global Banking and Finance Review to give his insight on the double materiality matter. We think you'll find it insightful.

Vadim bogulov Mf Bnq U Oz q Y unsplash

Should we stop using revenue as a gauge for materiality?

In financial services, we’re hardwired to look in detail at any company we’re planning to invest in. We scrutinise revenues, earnings, margins and any other piece of financially relevant information we can get our hands on. When faced with the challenge of measuring impact, many of us take a similar approach. First, we ask what products and services the company provides. Then we try to assess the impact of each of these. Is it positive or negative, and to what degree? And, finally, we use a metric like revenues to work out the relative importance of each product or service and calculate an overall “impact score” for the company.

This seems logical, but it isn’t. Let’s look at a real-life example. Bayer makes neonicotinoid pesticides. There is strong evidence that these are harmful to bees and other pollinators. Their use has been restricted in the EU since 2013, but they are still used elsewhere in the world and in the EU under “emergency authorisations”. According to Impaakt’s research, these products make up only 1.4% of Bayer’s revenues. This means that, if you calculate impact using revenues, this pesticide will barely register in Bayer’s overall score. Does that feel right?


“The problem is that, when you use revenues to gauge the importance of a product, you’re measuring its importance to the company but not its importance to everyone else.”

I’d guess that your answer would be “no”. The problem is that, when you use revenues to gauge the importance of a product, you’re measuring its importance to the company but not its importance to everyone else. And impact is largely about everyone else, i.e. the planet and society as a whole.

To measure impact, we need to look outwards, at the communities and environments that are affected, not inwards at the company’s revenues. We should have spent more time on that middle step in our assessment and tried to gauge the actual damage caused by the pesticide. That damage is something absolute - insect populations are being destroyed. This is not something that can be scaled up or down depending on the revenues that the product generates. When it comes to impact measurement, revenues are at best irrelevant and at worst highly misleading, when serious negative impacts are devalued or “offset” by less harmful activities. Revenues can also undervalue positive impacts. A great example here is Microsoft. Its LinkedIn product has a huge positive impact on employment, with three people hired every minute through the site. However, LinkedIn is only around 7% of Microsoft’s revenues, so a revenue-based model would downplay this contribution.

It is time for a change...

The financial services industry needs to shake off its old-school approach. Everyone is talking about impact and double materiality but it’s ironic that, when we actually try to measure impact, we somehow end up focusing on what’s important to a company (single materiality) and don’t also consider what’s important to people and planet (double materiality). Of course, investors should try to understand the detailed operations of a company but, to measure impact effectively, we need a much more open and outward-looking mindset.

The challenge is that impacts are not easily measured. In our pesticide example, they could be spread across the globe, with direct impacts on biodiversity and health, but also potential knock-on effects on jobs, food supply, water quality etc... You can see why some impact scoring models try to skirt around or downplay this step.

However, while it’s difficult to measure impact, it isn’t impossible. Technology and global connectivity are on our side. We can now gather and assess huge amounts of information, using not just computer power and AI but also the collective intelligence of people all around the globe. We also have guiding principles in the form of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include both environmental objectives like Life on Land and Life Below Water and social objectives like Zero Poverty and Quality Education. What is relevant for impact is not the contribution of a product to a company’s revenues, but its contribution (positive or negative) to one or more of these goals. We can address this challenge and we shouldn’t shy away from it or revert to outdated methodologies that fail to serve the purpose. With our collective approach to impact measurement, a global community of nearly 50.000 trained contributors decides whether something is material, and what its impact is on the world and the SDGs, not a single data provider with a revenue-based methodology. With this approach, double materiality becomes a reality, not just another way to greenwash an investment or company.

Find out more about Impaakt and our collective approach to impact assessment.

Related
Articles

Based on the article you've just read, here are some more we think you'd be interested in.

Web page 01

11 Min read

Global Impact Rankings Report 2022

Our annual Global Impact Rankings Report is out, discover which companies are leading the way on environmental & social impact issues and which need to step up their efforts.

Diane picchiottino Hk Rl0t6 QUEA unsplash

9 Min read

How to avoid greenwashing - with the Fintech Times

Impaakt CEO Bertrand Gacon talks to The Fintech Times about how investors can avoid greenwashing.

Ryoji iwata X53e51 Wfjl E unsplash 1

12 Min read

The role of impact in the SFDR and ESG data overload

Impaakt co-founder Bertrand Gacon gives his insight on the matter to Global Banking & Finance Magazine.

Best ESG Fintech Company Europe 2022 Blue

8 Min read

Impaakt named 'Best ESG Fintech Company Europe 2022'

Global Banking and Finance Magazine award Impaakt with the title of 'Best ESG Fintech Company 2022'

Client Website Page Impaakt 500 500 px

8 Min read

Client Case Study - Reyl Intesa Sanpaolo

Learn how the data and analytics that Impaakt provides, enable global financial institutes to progress their commitment to sustainable finance beyond ESG.

Impaakt Wealth and Finance Award Winners

9 Min read

Impaakt wins Ethical Finance Innovator Award

Industry recognised "Wealth & Finance Magazine" awards Impaakt with 'Innovator of the Year' in their annual Ethical Finance Awards.

Fiancial times impaakt

8 Min read

Impaakt referenced in the Financial Times

Moral Money article references Impaakt and it's unique approach to impact measurement.

World Green Background Sustainability small

Let’s take action together

With the right investment companies having a positive impact on the planet are able to flourish. Our community forms part of that mission by measuring their impact.

Join Us