AlphaValue Corporate Services
Cette analyse a été commandée et financée par l’entreprise concernée et constitue donc un avantage non-monétaire mineur tel que défini par MIFID2


Bloomberg   ALCJ FP
Super Génériques  /  France  Web Site   |   Investors Relation
Things get moving

Score de durabilité
Société (Secteur)
3,8 (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.

  Score Poids  
Taux de membres indépendants du Conseil d'Administration 5/10 25 %More ...
Diversité géographique du Conseil d'Administration 0/10 20 %
Fonction de Chairman distincte de l’exécutif 5 %
Emissions CO² 2/1025 %More ...
Prélèvement d'eau 2/1010 %
Évolution de la dispersion des salaires6/105 %More ...
Satisfaction au travail10/105 %
Communication interne10/105 %

Score de durabilité 3,8/10 100%  
Sustainability matters

As a small cap company, Crossject probably still pays less attention to ESG issues than larger groups at this stage. Still, a brief section of its annual report describes what the company considers as the seven fields where these concerns are doomed to rise in the future: governance (see the relevant section), human rights, the environment, working relations, ethics, local development and consumer-related issues. The group also indicates that an ethical charter (particularly useful in the US context) has been released in FY20.

Score d'Environnement
Société (Secteur)
1,6 (4,2)
Ensembles de données évalués en tant que tendances sur un calendrier glissant, en fonction du secteur
Emissions CO²2/104/10 30 %
Prélèvement d'eau2/105/10 30 %
Energie1/104/10 25 %
Déchets1/104/10 15 %
Score d'Environnement1,6  100%
Environment matters

As a small cap company, Crossject still releases a very limited amount of information of this topic.The annual report briefly addresses some sustainbility issues (see the related section), but it is clearly not unusual for a small cap company not to close too many details at this point in time.

Paramètres environnementaux

Energy (GJ) per €m in capital

CO² tons per €m in capital

Cubic meter water
withdrawal per €m in capital

Tons waste generated per €m in
capital employed
Crossject Pharmacie
Données sectorielles
Société PaysScore d'EnvironnementEnergie (totale, GJ)Emissions CO2 (tonnes)CO2
(in tons)
Prélèvement d'eau (m3)Déchets (total, tonnes)
AstraZeneca 8/106 253 646267 017 3 820 00028 848
ATAI Life Sciences BH 2/10     
Bachem BH 6/10155 7058 476 139 31514 439
Bayer 4/1034 835 0003 170 000055 000 000998 000
BB Biotech BH 2/10 77 3 4349
CrossjectCR 2/10     
Faes Farma 6/1052 1726 112 185 6851 517
Genmab 6/1010 530639 n/an/a
Grifols 6/101 614 800264 821 3 283 72544 949
GSK plc 5/1014 945 600840 000 10 170 00098 400
H Lundbeck 10/10388 94432 174 223 33916 590
Hikma Pharmaceuticals 4/101 366 600116 597 1 065 4798 890
Idorsia BH 8/1039 006311 18 304243
Ipsen 7/10418 17325 315 368 8614 274
Lonza Group 3/105 950 000523 000031 600 00061 900
Merck 4/108 834 4001 843 000013 460 000213 000
Novartis 7/109 770 000647 000 47 900 000129 100
Novo Nordisk 9/103 387 00093 000 3 488 000181 000
Novozymes 6/104 699 000253 000 8 538 00014 600
PolyPeptide BH 2/10     
Roche Holding 7/108 523 000438 187 15 400 00025 467
Sanofi 6/1014 778 043660 481 31 400 000254 730
Sensei Biotherapeutics 2/10     
Siegfried BH 2/102 045 00077 273 6 052 00076 710
UCB 9/1097151 505 569 8275 950
Virbac 5/10161 03520 814 226 3234 799

Social score
Société (Secteur)
5,4 (6,3)
Social matters

The level of information concerning social issues is also quite limited, not a real surprise for a small cap company. However, the group indicates that its equality index (Gaia index) reached 84/100 for FY20. Also see the “workforce section”.

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.
Evolution du personnel total8/10 15 %
Evolution du salaire moyen7/10 30 %
Part de la valeur ajoutée absorbée par les frais de personnel1/10 20 %
Part de la valeur ajoutée absorbée par les impôts1/10 15 %
Évolution de la dispersion des salaires6/10 20 %
Bonus Effectif et Retraites (0 ou 1)0
Quantitative score4,9/10 100%
Paramètres Qualitatifs (33 %)
Ensemble de critères qualitatifs, à cocher par l'analyste

Accidents du travail4/10 25 %
Developpement des ressources humaines8/10 35 %
Paye3/10 20 %
Satisfaction au travail10/10 10 %
Communication interne10/10 10 %
Score Qualitatif6,4/10 100%

Sector figures
SociétéPaysSocial Score Score QuantitatifScore QualitatifStaffing
Roche Holding 7,56,89,3100 164
BB Biotech BH 7,46,69,710,0
Virbac 7,36,79,05 446
Genmab 7,37,18,31 280
Bayer 7,27,28,0100 387
Lonza Group 7,06,77,617 082
GSK plc 7,06,58,666 810
Sanofi 6,96,87,694 251
Grifols 6,96,38,023 263
AstraZeneca 6,87,17,578 016
Novartis 6,76,27,996 050
Siegfried BH 6,65,68,73 641
Novo Nordisk 6,65,98,752 189
Hikma Pharmaceuticals 6,56,86,48 812
Merck 6,47,35,361 245
UCB 6,46,29,09 082
H Lundbeck 6,15,38,05 710
Ipsen 6,15,48,75 787
Bachem BH 5,57,37,91 970
Novozymes 5,54,57,26 532
PolyPeptide BH 5,38,14,01 240
Faes Farma 4,04,91,31 692
Idorsia BH 3,83,15,50,00
Sensei Biotherapeutics 2,82,62,090,0
ATAI Life Sciences BH 1,62,30,00,00

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.