Tononi (Banco BPM): "Companies need to be more relevant in the future cause of recent directive enacted by European Union"

Massimo Tononi, Presidente di Banco BPM, in occasione della prima giornata dell'Euronext Sustainability Week ha dichiarato:

I believe there is more and more need for companies to get better at defining their purpose, their mission, and then how to pursue them. In a scenario which is constantly evolving. Mr. Boujnah was mentioning that before,, and frankly, the kind of political and cultural and social sensitivities that we all need to listen to are changing all the time.

So it's all quite difficult for the board of directors of a company, so the issue is whether and in particular with respect to governance and our governance processes. The fact is that if you think about the ingredients of a good and effective governance change, I should say they are increased in number and scope because in addition to the traditional priorities, transparency, protection of minorities and so on and so forth, now we got to deal with a very broad spectrum of new tasks and new requirements.  One obviously is sustainable development, another one is engagement with a very broad universe of stakeholders, not shareholders, and then the discourse of non-financial information has become a crucial issue.

Companies need to be more relevant in the future because of the recent directive enacted by the European Union. So it's a sort of new frontier? Yes, exactly. Especially frontier is there. Also the title of our session today. So New Frontier, which by definition is fascinating, is compelling because at the end of the day, our future, the future of our children will be very much depending on this. 

But being a new frontier is also presents a number of obstacles and a number of unknowns, in fact, the significant cost for companies. This is why my feeling is that even I want to put it, the most virtuous, the most well-meaning company in the history field today is a bit at a loss in the face of regulation, which is becoming heavier, which is becoming more terrorism all the time. And in the face of a plethora of metrics, parameters, taxonomies, investment ratings which at times are actually controversial and counterintuitive. So we need as companies and I refer in particular to European companies. We need a bit more clarity. I'm not referring to the endgoal itself.

There is no need for clarity there. I suppose that in this room and everyone else, we all agree that a better future, more sustainable, more inclusive is what we all want. But we need more clarity on the trajectory, on the speed, on the ways to get there. So the debate is not on the final destination, the debate is on the direction of travel in Europe. In this respect, yes. You know, one side is showing the right determination and great ambition. Just think about the new EU Green Deal, the new directive which recently enacted the one on report and the one on due diligence with respect to sustainability. We can be proud of Europeans for that. At the same time, though, we must recognise that it is possible with of burdening companies with very onerous requirements in particular on environmental matters.

There is a risk of European companies losing competitiveness over time, in particular versus other areas of the world. Take the U.S. as an example. This is the list that we need to avoid. Um, and I don't want to be misunderstood. We want companies have a social role. I suppose that only a few nostalgic newspapers still believe that the company's mission is to enrich shareholders. We all know that companies must act in the best interests of all stakeholders, and that includes society as a whole. It's fair to look to companies to take action on a wide range of problems, from gender diversity to climate change and so on and so forth. It's actually fair if companies don't take that as continuing to apply binding rules to apply moral and moral suasion. But but we've got to be careful that it doesn't translate into a regulation which becomes to a genius among different jurisdictions.

Think again, Europe versus the US What becomes too rigid big or too inflexible because there is always the risk of losing a degree of competitiveness and increased cost for companies. We are all having a particular experience, this wonderful revolution, the evolution of sustainability, uh, which is very compelling. At the same time, though, we got to be aware that this revolution has connotations and implications which are not well defined it will take a bit of time to get there.

Mr. Boujnah was talking about ESG 2.0, That gives a flavour of the kind of evolution of the currency. By the way, the opinions on these topics are quite diverse. There are different views, for example, compared to Europe, and they seem to be shifting all the time is because the other day I was reading about Blackrock in the world's largest investor, this year they approved only 4% of the environmental and social proposal paid for by Information on this. So you don't need this 4% that doesn't come to mind. The number was 47%. So I decided basically to reduce the level of support to the standard proposals from 47 to 4% in three years.This is an idea of how the mood could still change in this area, and how difficult it is for the board of directors of companies to perform their duties. We got to listen to our stakeholders, to the inputs, the recommendations, the expectations,but also note that all those inputs also changefrom time to time. Just to conclude, in the old days it was easier.It was more straightforward. Doing good essentially meant doing well in terms of profitability and share price performance. These days, directors, executives of companies are fully aware that their decisions have a much broader purpose. And this makes us all see, I mean, what we do for a living much more compelling and appealing but also much more.