We permit the publication of our auditors’ report, provided the report is published in full only and is accompanied by the full financial statements to which our auditors’ report relates, and is only published on an access-controlled page on your website, to enable users to verify that an auditors’ report by independent accountants has been commissioned by the directors and issued. Such permission to publish is given by us without accepting or assuming any responsibility or liability to any third party users save where we have agreed terms with them in writing.

Our consent is given on condition that before any third party accesses our auditors’ report via the webpage they first document their agreement to the following terms of access to our report via a click-through webpage with an 'I accept' button. The terms to be included on your website are as follows:

I accept and agree for and on behalf of myself and the Trust I represent (each a "recipient") that:

  1. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) accepts no liability (including liability for negligence) to each recipient in relation to PwC’s report. The report is provided to each recipient for information purposes only. If a recipient relies on PwC’s report, it does so entirely at its own risk;
  2. No recipient will bring a claim against PwC which relates to the access to the report by a recipient;
  3. Neither PwC’s report, nor information obtained from it, may be made available to anyone else without PwC’s prior written consent, except where required by law or regulation; and
  4. PwC’s report was prepared with Hermes Property Unit Trust's interests in mind. It was not prepared with any recipient's interests in mind or for its use. PwC’s report is not a substitute for any enquiries that a recipient should make. The financial statements are as at 25 March 2017, and thus PwC’s auditors’ report is based on historical information. Any projection of such information or PwC’s opinion thereon to future periods is subject to the risk that changes may occur after the reports are issued and the description of controls may no longer accurately portray the system of internal control. For these reasons, such projection of information to future periods would be inappropriate.
  5. PwC will be entitled to the benefit of and to enforce these terms.
I accept

1. Select your country

  • United Kingdom
  • Austria
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Luxembourg
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Singapore
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • USA
  • Other

2. Select your investor type

  • Financial Advisor
  • Discretionary Investment Manager
  • Wealth Manager
  • Family Office
  • Institutional Investor
  • Investment Consultant
  • Charity, Foundation & Endowment Investor
  • Retail Investor
  • Press
  • None of the above

3. Accept our terms and conditions

By clicking Proceed I confirm I have read the important information and agree to the terms of use.


The Hermes Investment Management website uses cookies to remember your preferences and help us improve the site.
By proceeding, you agree to cookies being placed on your computer.
Read our privacy and cookie notices.

Research finds ‘governance premium’ entrenched

Home / Press Centre / Research finds ‘governance premium’ entrenched

07 September 2016
Global Equities

Companies with poor corporate governance tend to underperform well governed companies by an average of 30bps per month according to new research by Hermes Investment Management, the £26 billion manager focused on delivering superior, sustainable, risk adjusted returns to its clients – responsibly.

The report from the firm’s Global Equities team entitled, ESG Investing: It still makes you feel good, it still makes you money, follows on from an earlier study conducted by the team in 2014 and examines the impact of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors on equity returns from 2009-2016.

Geir Lode, Head of Global Equities, Hermes Investment Management said: “Two years on from our original study, which also showed a discrepancy of 30bps per month between well and poorly governed companies, this research highlights that the ‘governance premium’ is well and truly entrenched. Furthermore, our latest study demonstrates that the premium holds true across different geographies and sectors – albeit with a few caveats – proving the almost universal power of effective corporate governance.”

The research found Japan’s ESG scores to be lagging behind the three other major developed regions analysed: Asia Pacific ex Japan, Europe and North America. While North American companies scored highest on corporate governance, environmental and social scores trailed. The research also highlighted a negative relation between governance scores and shareholder returns for IT firms.

Lode explained: “The IT sector can be dominated by start-up companies which rapidly grow from micro-to-mega-cap businesses, often driven by a strong dominant founder. From a governance perspective, these companies can look weak – dictatorships are not the ideal corporate governance structure – but the returns achieved can be exceptional. Once these companies mature they tend to implement better standards of governance.”

However, the research did not prove that a statistically significant relationship between outperformance and environmental or social metrics exists. Nevertheless, it did confirm that favouring companies that are better at managing environmental and social risks (relative to their peers) does not tend to lead to underperformance.

Lode concluded: “2016 really was the year that responsible investing came of age. From Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, highlighting the risk that climate change poses to financial stability through to the increased adoption of ESG market indices, it seems that the investment world has accepted that factors beyond traditional financial metrics can be material.”

To download the research report in full click here.

Research methodology
The Hermes Global Equities team has built a bespoke quantitative scoring methodology, which considers environmental, social and governance matters, evaluating each company’s current ESG characteristics and identifying positive change. The score combines data from Hermes EOS, CDP, Sustainalytics, Trucost, FactSet and Bloomberg.

The assessment methodology was applied to the constituents of the MSCI World index. There was sufficient data coverage for this index since 31 December 2007, allowing for scores to be created since 31 December 2008 (to allow for one year of data to measure changes in ESG practice). The test was conducted using monthly rebalancing, to match the greatest frequency at which the data set is updated.

Companies are assessed relative to their sector and geographic peers to remove any biases in the results.

Since our 2014 paper, we have improved the methodology used to create the scores. These changes have been driven by the availability of new data sources, allowing us to increase our focus on forward looking metrics, particularly regarding environmental and social risks. These new metrics assist in identifying which companies are setting robust programmes to reduce emissions, are better managing their supply chain risks and have a favourable outlook regarding any historic controversies impacting their business.

Share this post:

Find posts by author

  • Alex Knox, ACA
  • Andrew Jackson
  • Andrew Parry
  • Claire Gavini
  • Dr Michael Viehs
  • Emeric Chenebaux
  • Eoin Murray
  • Geoffrey Wan, CFA
  • Harriet Steel
  • Ilana Elbim
  • Jonathan Pines, CFA
  • Joseph Buckley
  • Louise Dudley
  • Mark Sherlock, CFA
  • Martin Todd
  • Michael Russell, CFA
  • Michael Vaughan
  • Neil Williams
  • Nick Spooner
  • Nina Röhrbein
  • Peter Hofbauer
  • Philip Nell
  • Saker Nusseibeh
  • Silvia Dall’Angelo
  • Tatiana Bosteels
  • Tim Crockford
  • Tommaso Mancuso
  • Yasmin Chowdhury

Find posts by category

  • global equities

Press contacts