Odiot | MLODT FP | Luxe | France | Sustainability / ESG

Score de durabilité

Société (Secteur)
4,0 (5,1)

La durabilité est constituée d'éléments analytiques contribuant au E, au S et au G, qui peuvent être mis en évidence comme précurseurs de la durabilité et peuvent être combinés de manière satisfaisante.

More on Sustainability / ESG ...

	Score	Poids

Gouvernance
Taux de membres indépendants du Conseil d'Administration	8/10	25 %	More ...
Diversité géographique du Conseil d'Administration	5/10	20 %
Fonction de Chairman distincte de l’exécutif		5 %

Environnement
Emissions CO₂	1/10	25 %	More ...
Prélèvement d'eau	2/10	10 %

Social
Évolution de la dispersion des salaires	0/10	5 %	More ...
Satisfaction au travail	3/10	5 %
Communication interne	10/10	5 %

Score de durabilité

4,0/10

100%

Score d'Environnement

Société (Secteur)
1,3 (4,3)

Ensembles de données évalués en tant que tendances sur un calendrier glissant, en fonction du secteur

More ...

Paramètres	Score	Secteur	Poids
Emissions CO₂	1/10	4/10	30 %
Prélèvement d'eau	2/10	5/10	30 %
Energie	1/10	4/10	25 %
Déchets	1/10	5/10	15 %
Score d'Environnement	1,3		100%

Environment matters

La note environnementale est médiocre, Odiot SA n’étant pas en mesure, à ce stade, de fournir des données relatives aux émissions de carbone et à la consommation d’eau.

Paramètres environnementaux

Energy (GJ) per €m in capital employed	CO₂ tons per €m in capital employed	Cubic meter water withdrawal per €m in capital employed	Tons waste generated per €m in capital employed

Odiot Consommation durable

Données sectorielles

Société	Score d'Environnement	Energie (totale, GJ)	Emissions CO₂ (tonnes)	CO₂ Compensation (in tons)	Prélèvement d'eau (m3)	Déchets (total, tonnes)

adidas	2/10	1 829 830	127 982		301 906	26 382
Burberry	5/10	175 956	16 560	17 885	474 951	790
CEWE^BH	2/10	140 134	4 421	20 000		12 601
Electrolux	5/10	2 818 926	300 000		2 563 000	152 270
Haier Smart Home - D shares	5/10	9 341 237	1 618 400		8 074 048	231 738
Hermes International	4/10	872 676	56 478	22 000	6 193 900	22 284
HUGO BOSS	4/10	513 842	20 594		44 946	7 656
Husqvarna	8/10	929 808	36 818		n/a	n/a
Kering	7/10	1 501 203	41 802		787 014	19 867
Knaus Tabbert	4/10	143 741	3 222		48 343	8 934
LVMH	7/10	6 462 810	213 937	256 000	4 609 422	129 005
Moncler	7/10	244 879	21 358		72 386	1 912
Odiot^CR	1/10
Prada	7/10	407 653	31 591	31 567	449 600	3 546
PUMA	7/10	451 148	5 438		150 670	5 502
Richemont	7/10	1 015 920	17 613		2 818 931	14 802
Seb	2/10	2 334 974	199 895		2 301 000	57 847
Swatch	6/10	1 281 960	38 435		1 333 293	5 236
TomTom	6/10	31 709	1 320		8 019	171

MORE DATA

Social score

Société (Secteur)
3,8 (6,4)

Social matters

Le score RH est pénalisé par l’absence de données historiques relatives aux effectifs. Les équipes de Silversmiths semblent néanmoins disposées à mobiliser leur expérience au service des nouveaux plans de croissance.

Paramètres Quantitatifs (67 %)

Ensemble de mesures numériques liées au personnel, disponibles dans le modèle propriétaire AlphaValue, visant à établir un classement sur les questions sociales et de ressources humaines.

More ...

Paramètres	Score	Poids
Evolution du personnel total	10/10	20 %
Evolution du salaire moyen	1/10	35 %
Part de la valeur ajoutée absorbée par les frais de personnel	1/10	25 %
Part de la valeur ajoutée absorbée par les impôts	1/10	20 %
Évolution de la dispersion des salaires	0/10	0 %
Bonus Effectif et Retraites (0 ou 1)	0
Quantitative score	2,8/10	100%

Paramètres Qualitatifs (33 %)

Ensemble de critères qualitatifs, à cocher par l'analyste

More ...

Paramètres	Score	Poids
Accidents du travail	10/10	25 %
Developpement des ressources humaines	6/10	35 %
Paye	0/10	20 %
Satisfaction au travail	3/10	10 %
Communication interne	10/10	10 %

Score Qualitatif	5,9/10	100%

Sector figures

Société	Social Score	Score Quantitatif	Score Qualitatif	Staffing

CEWE^BH	7,6	7,5	7,9	4 119
TomTom	7,4	7,2	7,8	3 465
Hermes International	7,3	6,0	10,0	27 819
LVMH	7,2	6,7	8,3	217 155
Husqvarna	7,1	7,8	5,8	13 484
Seb	7,1	6,4	8,6	30 881
PUMA	6,9	5,6	9,7	17 578
adidas	6,9	5,6	9,7	65 587
Knaus Tabbert	6,9	6,7	7,2	2 831
HUGO BOSS	6,6	5,2	9,7	20 019
Electrolux	6,6	7,9	4,0	40 581
Prada	6,3	6,7	5,5	17 722
Moncler	6,2	5,8	7,1	8 185
Richemont	6,2	6,9	4,7	40 393
Swatch	6,1	5,5	7,3	32 973
Haier Smart Home - D shares	4,4	4,0	5,4	125 200
Burberry	4,2	4,7	3,3	7 445
Kering	3,7	3,3	4,4	43 660

MORE DATA

Sustainability / ESG by AlphaValue:

Doubt driven, focused on dynamics

AlphaValue was set up in 2009 as an ESG native firm: since inception, no research could be published without filling up the ESG relevant items. ESG has always been there as a natural building block of the research effort.

Without much pretence, AlphaValue has accumulated 11 years of proprietary, practical data in a consistent way that has been made to "talk" with financial data. The efforts have been aimed at solving the main conundrum of ESG analytics: avoiding useless and noisy data. AlphaValue ESG data is intimately connected to the fundamental research work and its continuous updating process. In other words, AlphaValue ESG data can be made to resonate at will in terms of financial implications for those investors with the willingness to do so.

Over the last 3 years, this data, or rather the dynamic of this data, has been put at work so that it impacts directly and consistently on valuations across AlphaValue's 450 + stocks universe. This is considerable progress vs. the dominant "consumption" of ESG raw data: ESG-type conclusions are sitting next to valuation fundamentals but hardly any investor is in a position to bridge effectively the two in a consistent and repeatable way. It takes more than a spreadsheet to get stable and auditable results that work 100% of the time.

AlphaValue reckons that it currently is the only equity research provider in Europe to have reached this stage: a perfectly smooth on-boarding of ESG data, on a continuing basis, impacting valuation fundamentals day and night.

This is available on every stock, every sector, every stock selection, every day.

Heretical ESG opinions?

ESG is a contradiction in terms. Without a good Governance, the Social and Environment items will never show progress. Social is for stakeholders and thus unlikely to please shareholders. The long-term view that good pay/working conditions are ultimately good for shareholders is, like any promise, better left to those who want to believe in it. It does not work for normal investment horizons

Environmental gains will not happen without good Governance but this is not enough as environmental progress will not happen without coercion from governments/supra-governments. There is no reason why a corporate will spend more for a possible collective gain tomorrow when it can have better returns now for its shareholders.

The environment is a cost of massive complexity and a universal one as data improves and allows for intricate tracking of what corporates are up to. There is no practical way a corporate can be valued through a web of changing definitions of environmental data. AlphaValue holds the view that all corporates are made to pay through lower GDP growth expectations resulting from friction costs. The only dimension that really matters from an investment perspective is whether a given corporate makes an extra effort vs. peers. A good 'E' rating shall not be driven by absolute levels but by the dynamic of emission controls relative to peers. Dumping cement stocks because they spit out carbon is a narrow view of what ESG implies.

Sustainability scores only

AlphaValue always refused to supply a pecking order of its coverage along some improbable ESG scale. It just does not make sense to mix opposing signals in a single ranking.

Sustainability is a different proposition where analytical items contributing to the E, the S and the G can be highlighted as sustainability precursors and combined in an intellectually acceptable way. This is the only scale made available by AlphaValue.

Sustainability impacts target prices

From 1-12-2020, AlphaValue substituted sustainability metrics for its Governance and Social ones when it comes to impacting valuations;

Indeed since 2019, all DCF (or DCF equivalents for Financials) have been impacted by Governance and Social metrics to connect directly ESG-type findings into share price targets and bring consistency across the board. The impact is driven by adjusting the small 'g' conventionally used to assess the growth to infinity. This is being tweaked to recognise, say, that good governance ultimately pays off.

The same procedure is now stemming from Sustainability metrics instead.

For the record, this has been made possible as AlphaValue has finalised its proprietary E scoring, now extended to 4 items (GHG, Waste, Water, Energy) on which a degree of data stability seems to emerge.