ESG news: food-chain safety hits the headlines – what’s the impact on market performance?

July 02 2020

John BriggsHead of Strategy, Americas

View bio

Other insights

View more insights

4 minute read

In the age of coronavirus, conditions at food processors and distributors are suddenly in the spotlight. In this feature, we analyse workers’ conditions, and the influence of safety issues on market performance.

Early on in the coronavirus crisis there was heightened awareness of potential food-chain vulnerabilities. Yet despite reports of food shortages and hoarding, the sector held up well overall. This doesn’t mean that no issues arose. In particular, there have been a number of high-profile coronavirus outbreaks at meat packing plants, most notably in the US and Germany, where new cases continue to emerge.

So with this increased focus on the food industry and the safety of people who work in it, how did food companies meet their social obligations to their workforce, while continuing to provide an essential service? And did investors take notice?

What we looked at

To help answer this question, we reviewed the social element of the environmental, social and governance scores (ESG-S scores) of a basket of 47 companies involved in the food chain. The companies are active in areas such as production and processing, packaging and distribution, and retail. The ESG-S scores range from 0–100, with higher numbers representing better social practices. We evaluated how their ESG-S scores changed between the end of January and May and their investment returns over the period.

We also took a more granular look at their social performance, analysing two specific scoring issues related to employee working conditions and safety– and their link with investment returns:

  • Occupational Health and Safety: Workplace-related health and safety performance
  • Employment Quality: Working conditions and employee satisfaction

What we found

Of the 47 companies in our study, 39 saw their ESG-S scores fall over the period. These were mostly negligible drops, but ten companies saw their score fall by an average of 10%. Only eight firms experienced increases in their scores.

But what about their investment returns? We found that companies that suffered the largest declines in their ESG-S scores during the coronavirus crisis saw their stock prices underperform broader related indices, in many cases falling by twice as much. The results for the eight companies whose ESG-S scores increased were more mixed, suggesting that other issues could outweigh the potential positive impact of improved social scores.

When we dug deeper, looking beyond their overall ESG-S scores and at the granular working conditions and safety criteria, the results were more striking: a basket of the worst-performing companies in these more specific metrics saw falls two to four times as big as that suffered by the broader food and beverage market. What’s more, the best-performing companies in these areas outperformed the broad industry.

What’s going on here?

First, let’s consider how the overall ESG-S scores affected returns. It’s important not to try to draw too many conclusions as lots of factors will have affected these companies’ investment returns, not just their ESG-S scores. For example, several of the firms whose ESG-S scores fell the most were small caps, which in general suffered more than large caps over the period. And yet even when we adjusted our results for market cap, these companies still underperformed.

Why didn’t the firms whose ESG-S scores improved outperform? It’s possible that we’ve witnessed an asymmetric response that penalises negative news rather than reward positive developments. We intend to investigate this as part of our ESG analysis, as it’s a really interesting phenomenon that we’ve seen several times before.  It may be that investors are quick to sell firms that are hit by negative ESG news, while improvements take more time to for them to process.

So why the stark differences in the returns of companies with differing working condition and safety performance? It could be that these specific metrics are particularly important to investors at present as they’re hot topics that many consumers are increasingly concerned about and investors feel they just can’t afford to ignore them.

The top takeaway: ESG investing is becoming even more granular

Whatever the exact reasons for the performance dispersion we’ve seen, these results highlight the importance of specific ESG considerations in investment decisions. And as the availability and quality of granular data on factors such as occupational safety continue to improve, their role in investment decision-making looks set to grow.

The bottom line is that ESG investing, in our view, is not simply about avoiding particular sectors, it’s about the growing role of increasingly specific factors for companies across industries. And of course there are important implications for firms in the food industry too.

We’ve already seen a significant shift towards more ethical production chains in other industries, such as clothing and electronics, in response to consumer demand. Investors could also play an important role in improvements in the food industry.

Login to Agile Markets to read the full analysis.

Our voice

This article has been prepared for information purposes only, does not constitute an analysis of all potentially material issues and is subject to change at any time without prior notice. NatWest Markets does not undertake to update you of such changes.  It is indicative only and is not binding. Other than as indicated, this article has been prepared on the basis of publicly available information believed to be reliable but no representation, warranty, undertaking or assurance of any kind, express or implied, is made as to the adequacy, accuracy, completeness or reasonableness of the information contained in this article, nor does NatWest Markets accept any obligation to any recipient to update or correct any information contained herein. Views expressed herein are not intended to be and should not be viewed as advice or as a personal recommendation. The views expressed herein may not be objective or independent of the interests of the authors or other NatWest Markets trading desks, who may be active participants in the markets, investments or strategies referred to in this article. NatWest Markets will not act and has not acted as your legal, tax, regulatory, accounting or investment adviser; nor does NatWest Markets owe any fiduciary duties to you in connection with this, and/or any related transaction and no reliance may be placed on NatWest Markets for investment advice or recommendations of any sort. You should make your own independent evaluation of the relevance and adequacy of the information contained in this article and any issues that are of concern to you.

This article does not constitute an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any investment, nor does it constitute an offer to provide any products or services that are capable of acceptance to form a contract. NatWest Markets and each of its respective affiliates accepts no liability whatsoever for any direct, indirect or consequential losses (in contract, tort or otherwise) arising from the use of this material or reliance on the information contained herein. However this shall not restrict, exclude or limit any duty or liability to any person under any applicable laws or regulations of any jurisdiction which may not be lawfully disclaimed.

NatWest Markets Plc. Incorporated and registered in Scotland No. 90312 with limited liability. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB. Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority. NatWest Markets N.V. is incorporated with limited liability in the Netherlands, authorised and regulated by De Nederlandsche Bank and the Autoriteit Financiële Markten. It has its seat at Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and is registered in the Commercial Register under number 33002587. Registered Office: Claude Debussylaan 94, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Branch Reg No. in England BR001029. NatWest Markets Plc is, in certain jurisdictions, an authorised agent of NatWest Markets N.V. and NatWest Markets N.V. is, in certain jurisdictions, an authorised agent of NatWest Markets Plc. NatWest Markets Securities Japan Limited [Kanto Financial Bureau (Kin-sho) No. 202] is authorised and regulated by the Japan Financial Services Agency. Securities business in the United States is conducted through NatWest Markets Securities Inc., a FINRA registered broker-dealer (, a SIPC member ( and a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of NatWest Markets Plc.

Copyright 2020 © NatWest Markets Plc. All rights reserved.