Practitioners and researchers struggle with valuing the return on sustainability investment (ROSI). We apply a five-step methodology that systematically monetizes sustainability actions to answer a key question: Do sustainable practices lead to a positive financial return for the business? We demonstrate the versatility of this methodology by monetizing potential and realized financial benefits via mediating factors (i.e., financial drivers) across two types of industries: Brazilian beef supply chains that committed to deforestation-free beef and the automotive industry, where companies were working to make manufacturing operations more sustainable. The companies participating in our cases generated substantial value from implementing sustainability strategies. The beef supply chain yielded a potential net present value (NPV) between 0.01 to 12% of annual revenue, depending on the supply chain segment. For one automotive company, the five-year NPV based on realized benefits was 12% of annual revenue. Our ROSI methodology guides managers to better value sustainability’s financial benefits. Ultimately, monetizing sustainability can lead to a competitive advantage and shared value for multiple stakeholders.
- Corporate sustainability
- Financial performance
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
The download link is at the bottom of the page: https://hbr.org/2017/09/how-to-quantify-sustainabilitys-impact-on-your-bottom-line.
The Excel download link is available at http://bit.ly/rosi-auto and on the CSB website.
Albertini, E. (2013). Does environmental management improve financial performance? A meta-analytical review. Organization & Environment, 26(4), 431–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026613510301.
Anderson, M. W., Teisl, M. F., Noblet, C., & Klein, S. (2015). The incompatibility of benefit–cost analysis with sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 10(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0266-4.
Barnett, M. L., Hartmann, J., & Salomon, R. M. (2018). Have you been served? Extending the relationship between corporate social responsibility and lawsuits. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(2), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2015.0030.
Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1304–1320. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1980.
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., & Frame, B. (2007). Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models. Ecological Economics, 61(2–3), 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.021.
Broman, K. W., & Woo, K. H. (2018). Data organization in spreadsheets. The American Statistician, 72(1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2017.1375989.
Chava, S. (2014). Environmental externalities and cost of capital. Management Science, 60(9), 2223–2247. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1863.
Clark, G. L., Feiner, A., & Viehs, M. (2014). From the stockholder to the stakeholder: How sustainability can drive financial outperformance. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2508281.
Cornell, B., & Shapiro, A. C. (1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management, 16(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.2307/3665543.
Delmas, M. A., & Pekovic, S. (2018). Corporate sustainable innovation and employee behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 1071–1188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3163-1.
Delmas, M. A., & Pekovic, S. (2013). Environmental standards and labor productivity: Understanding the mechanisms that sustain sustainability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 230–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1827.
Desai, R. M., Kharas, H., & Amin, M. (2017). Combining good business and good development: Evidence from IFC operations, 103. Global Economy & Development. https://www.brookings.edu/about-us/annual-report/.
Douglas, E., Van Holt, T., & Whelan, T. (2017). Responsible investing: Guide to ESG data providers and relevant trends. The Journal of Environmental Investing, 8(1), 92–114.
Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. M. (2010). Doing well by doing good? The American Economic Review, 100(5), 2492–2509. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.
Endrikat, J., Guenther, E., & Hoppe, H. (2014). Making sense of conflicting empirical findings: A Meta-analytic review of the relationship between corporate environmental and financial performance. European Management Journal, 32(5), 735–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EMJ.2013.12.004.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917.
Fulton, M., Kahn, B., & Sharples, C. (2012). Sustainable investing: Establishing long-term value and performance. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2222740.
Gao, H., & Zhang, W. (2017). Employment nondiscrimination acts and corporate innovation. Management Science, 63(9), 2982–2999. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2457.
Garavan, T. N., Heraty, N., Rock, A., & Dalton, E. (2010). Conceptualizing the behavioral barriers to CSR and CS in organizations: A typology of HRD interventions. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(5), 587–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422310394779.
Godfrey, P. C. (2005). Philanthropy and shareholder wealth: The relationship between corporate a risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777–798.
Golicic, S. L., & Smith, C. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of environmentally sustainable supply chain management practices and firm performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(2), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12006.
Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability…and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AOS.2009.04.006.
Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate. Business and Society, 36(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039703600102.
Haffar, Merriam, & Searcy, C. (2018). The use of context-based environmental indicators in corporate reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 192, 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.04.202.
Haskel, J., & Westlake, S. (2017). Capitalism without capital: The Rise of the intangible economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review, 74(2), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400203.
Hubbard, D. W. (2014). How to measure anything: Finding the value of intangibles in business (3rd ed). New York: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.048.
Hunt, V., Prince S., Dixon-Fyle, S., & Yee, L. (2018). Delivering through diversity. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Organization/Our%20Insights/Delivering%20through%20diversity/Delivering-through-diversity_full-report.ashx.
IFC & Deloitte. (2014). Financial valuation tool for sustainability investments. https://www.fvtool.com/downloads/user-guide-april2014.pdf.
Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2019). Corporate sustainability: A strategy? (19-065). SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3312191.
Joseph, G. (2012). Ambiguous but tethered: An accounting basis for sustainability reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2011.11.011.
Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697–1724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51383.
Kiron, D., Unruh, G., Kruschwitz, N., Reeves, M., Rubel, H., Meyer, A., & Felde, Z. (2017). Progress toward our common future in uncertain times. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(4). http://sloanreview.mit.edu/sustainability2017.
Lev, B. (2001). Intangibles: Management, measurement, and reporting. Brookings Institution Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctvcj2rf2.
Lev, B., & Gu, F. (2016). The end of accounting and the path forward for investors and managers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lubin, D. A., & Krosinsky, C. (2013, December). The value driver model: A tool for communicating the business value of sustainability (pp. 1–26). UN Global Compact Leaders Summit 2013: Architects of a Better World.
Miras-Rodríguez, M. d. M., Carrasco-Gallego, A., & Escobar-Pérez, B. (2015). Are socially responsible behaviors paid off equally? A cross-cultural analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(4), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1344.
Marcuzzo, S. F. (2015). Novo campo program: A strategy for sustainable cattle ranching in the Amazon. Instituto Centro de Vida, Alta Floresta-MT. https://www.icv.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Cartilha-Novo-Campo-ING.pdf.
Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., &. Walsh, J. P. (2009, March). Does it pay to be good…and does it matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1866371.
McElroy, M. W., & van Engelen, J. (2012). Corporate sustainability management: The art and science of managing non-financial performance. Earthscan. https://books.google.com/books/about/Corporate_Sustainability_Management.html?id=OFMju0mjWj0C.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200005)21:5%3c603:AID-SMJ101%3e3.0.CO;2-3.
Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2013). W(h)Ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003910.
Peloza, J., & Yachnin, R. (2008). Valuing business sustainability: A systematic review. Research Network for Business Sustainability. https://api.van2.auro.io:8080/v1/AUTH_6bda5a38d0d7490e81ba33fbb4be21dd/sophia/blox/assets/data/000/000/018/original/NBS-Systematic-Review-Valuing.pdf?1492523365.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006, December). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. The Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011, January–February). The big idea: Creating shared value. The Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2), 62–77.
Rappaport, A. (1986). Creating shareholder value: The new standard for business performance. New York and London: Free Press.
Reed, D. (2001). Stalking the elusive business case for corporate sustainability. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. https://www.worldcat.org/title/stalking-the-elusive-business-case-for-corporate-sustainability/oclc/875646874&referer=brief_results.
Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability: Literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2004.12.007.
Schaltegger, S., & Figge, F. (2000). Environmental shareholder value: Economic success with corporate environmental management. Eco-Management and Auditing, 7(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0925(200003)7:1%3c29:AID-EMA119%3e3.0.CO;2-1.
Schneider, T. E. (2011). Is environmental performance a determinant of bond pricing? Evidence from the U.S. pulp and paper and chemical industries*. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(5): 1537–1561. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2010.01064.x.
Searcy, C. (2012). Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1038-z.
Searcy, C. (2016). Measuring enterprise sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(2), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1861.
Steger, U. (2006). Building a business case for corporate sustainability. In Managing the business case for sustainability: The integration of social, environmental and economic performance (pp. 412–443). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.
The New York Times Magazine. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14.
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2017). Sustainability and enterprise risk management: The first step towards integration. https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/2548/31131%0A.
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2019). Materiality in corporate reporting—A white paper focusing on the food and agriculture sector. https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Redefining-Value/Resources/A-White-Paper-focusing-on-the-food-and-agriculture-sector.
Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672. https://doi.org/10.2307/257057.
United Nations ESCAP. (2009). Eco-effciency indicators: Measuring resource-use effciency and the impact of economic activities on the environment. Greening the Economic Growth Series. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/785eco.pdf.
Vitaliano, D. F. (2012). Corporate social responsibility, ethics, and corporate governance. Social Responsibility Journal, 10(5), 653. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720701011085544.
Voegtlin, C., & Pless, N. M. (2014). Global governance: CSR and the role of the UN Global Compact. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(2), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2214-8.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199704)18:4%3c303:AID-SMJ869%3e3.0.CO;2-G.
Whelan, T., & Fink, C. (2016). The comprehensive business case for sustainability. Harvard Business Review, 21. http://everestenergy.nl/new/wp-content/uploads/HBR-Article-The-comprehensive-business-case-for-sustainability.pdf.
Whelan, T., Zappa, B., Zeidan, R., & Fishbein, G. (2017). How to quantify sustainability’s impact on your bottom line. Harvard Business Review, 23. https://hbr.org/2017/09/how-to-quantify-sustainabilitys-impact-on-your-bottom-line.
Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028831.
This research was originally published in Atz, U., Van Holt, T., Douglas, E., & Whelan, T. (2019). The Return on Sustainability Investment (ROSI): Monetizing Financial Benefits of Sustainability Actions in Companies. Review of Business: Interdisciplinary Journal on Risk and Society, 39(2), 1–31.
This paper has been selected to receive an honorarium underwritten by Munich Re, a leading advocate of sustainable business strategies.
This research was funded in part by the Investindustrial Foundation and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. We thank Bruno Zappa and Rodrigo Zeidan for their contributions in the deforestation-free beef project. For part of the work, we also received pro bono support provided by AT Kearney.
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix A: Implementing Monetization Methods Illustrated with an Example
The details of all calculations for the first case study (beef supply chain) are available in a spreadsheet for download (Whelan et al., 2017).Footnote 1 For the automotive industry, we released only the spreadsheet templateFootnote 2 because of the confidential nature of internal company data. To guide practitioners further on how to implement their own ROSI analysis, we walk through one example, conflict materials, from Table 14.3. Risk Reduction Strategies (below).
Excerpt from Table 14.3. Risk Reduction Strategies
Avoid use of conflict materials
Savings from reduced use of conflict minerals
Higher operational efficiency
Spend reduction on conflict minerals derived from multiplying the per cent reduction in amount of conflict minerals per vehicle by the annual volume of conflict minerals used. Reduction due to less use of conflict minerals multiplied by the weighted average price of conflict minerals
Lower costs associated with substitute materials
Reduction in conflict minerals due to substitute product multiplied by the conversion rate and by the cost differential in price of material
Savings related to lower energy consumption using substitute materials
The sum of:
(i) the savings from a reduction in use of conflict minerals derived from multiplying the reduced material used by the weighted average spend on energy used in manufacturing using conflict minerals per ton; and
(ii) the saving from substituting materials derived from multiplying the material substituted by the differential in the weighted average cost of energy per ton using conflict minerals and the weighted average cost of energy per ton using substitute materials
Savings related to lower water consumption using substitute materials
The sum of:
(i) the savings from a reduction in use of conflict minerals derived from multiplying the reduced material used by the weighted average spend on water used in manufacturing using conflict minerals per ton; and
(ii) the saving from substituting materials derived from multiplying the material substituted by the differential in the weighted average cost of water per ton using conflict minerals and the weighted average cost of water per ton using substitute materials
Avoided costs related to supply shortages
Better risk management
Estimated cost of a short supply incident by the average annual incidents of short supply
Avoided costs related to regulatory fines
Estimated cost from multiplying the average annual number of incidents of conflict mineral related fines by the average fine per incident less additional compliance costs incurred
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had required publicly traded companies to annually report use of conflict minerals (tin, tantalum, tungsten, or gold) in their products (the rule was suspended in April 2017). Regardless, SASB, who standardizes voluntary disclosure, identifies the management of risks associated with critical materials in their materiality map. Automotive companies have worked towards this goal by, for example, signing a declaration of support for the Responsible Raw Materials Initiative or using algorithms to ensure tier 3 and 4 supplier compliance. In the manufacturing process, using less material for achieving the same output has obvious implications for improved resource consumption and using substitute materials may also lead to efficiencies. However, the latter is a less clear financial benefit as the substitute material may cost more or be required in larger quantities.
When companies avoided sourcing and using conflict minerals, they generated value through two mediating factors: operational efficiency and risk management. Operational efficiency benefits were a combination of savings from: (1) reduced use; (2) using cheaper substitute materials—both of which led to (3) lower energy consumption and (4) lower water consumption according to the companies. On the risk side, the benefits were: (5) avoided cost related to supply shortages, and (6) avoided regulatory fines. Above, the monetization method (last column) describes the following calculations. The calculations in Table A1 and A2 follow a similar logic: We gathered the realized inputs for 2015 and 2016, adjusted for vehicle production (so that a change is independent of how many cars were produced), and monetized the changes with average weighted cost.
Table A1 and A2 show how we simplified calculations by using aggregate data. Other benefits, for instance, managing manufacturing material waste, were also included as a total category (by using the average weighted cost of disposal instead of breaking it down). Some analyses may require an even more granular level of data. If the mix of manufactured vehicles were to have an impact on year-on-year changes, including it would yield more precise estimates. Regardless of the level, however, the framework provides solid directional guidance for forecasting investments and likely outcomes.
Table A3 takes a simplified approach to assessing risk because of the overall complexity resulting from many sustainability strategies. The companies provided estimates for the incident rate and average cost for supply shortage and regulatory fines related to conflict minerals. We postulated that the sustainability strategies would mitigate the potential cost in the long-term. For a risk assessment approach, an extended analysis may choose to model the incident rate and cost as a distribution with, for example, a truncated lognormal distribution. The simulation outputs based on such parameters might then provide more than a point estimate and inform the analyst further on extreme values.
Tables A1–A4 provided the information required to calculate the net financial benefit of the sustainability strategy. The annual additional operating income was $35,944,801 (i.e., $36,865,873 minus the cost of $921,072). Lastly, we wanted to know the value of these benefits if they were to continue over the next five years and calculated the NPV as shown in Table A5.
Appendix B: How the Return on Sustainability Investments (Rosi) Framework May Be Applied in the Insurance Industry
Companies that focus on a sustainable business model and related risk management might incur short-term costs and investments, but benefit from mid- and long-term benefits. Some of the benefits materialize right away in reduced insurance premiums as underwriters ought to take the risk management of companies into consideration. Companies and their insurance coverage have similar interests to prevent potential losses, to mitigate losses, and to find innovative solutions. Investments in sustainable solutions have therefore a direct monetary impact as they will be reflected in reductions of insurance premiums. ROSI and its associated data can be used to provide transparency and can be applied in the underwriting process. Identifying, quantifying, and monetizing the value of these sustainability strategies can help insurers further understand how a company is mitigating material risks such as recalls for the automotive industry, which may be used, for example, in assessing price premiums (Table B1).
In Table B1, we list three sustainability benefits that were monetized in our study based on the automotive industry:
Water use reduction: Insurance companies are already modelling the growing risk of water, its cost implications, and how droughts and floods can both affect operations. We showed how to monetize the automotive companies’ efforts to improve water consumption, which affected the amount of water used, recovered and reused, and disposed.
Critical materials: The automotive companies aimed to reduce their dependency on critical and conflict minerals (e.g., tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold, which have been regulated in the past). The ROSI metrics we used show how companies are either reducing or substituting critical materials, the scale of these efforts, and how they generated a positive net return because of reduced costs associated with the new approaches and the reduced risk from supply chain disruptions (see Appendix A).
Recalls: Recalls have been increasing in the automotive industry, and addressing recalls are material to the automotive industry (see the SASB materiality map). The ROSI metrics we used show the scale of the recalls and the associated cost for a recall. For example, in one company, recalls were reduced likely because they incorporated more systems thinking into the manufacturing process, so that the design process spanned multiple departments that were previously isolated in their sustainability efforts. The company’s ability to improve quality in manufacturing along with working closer with their supply chain partners, ought to mitigate the number of recalls. Insurers, during their due diligence, can ask clients about their manufacturing improvements, request that companies begin to track and monetize necessary information, or engage in a collaborative discussion on sustainability strategies that reduce risk exposure.
When a company monetizes its sustainability actions, others can evaluate how they are innovating and investing to minimize risk. People can see, and quantitatively value, robust contingency plans to mitigate future losses, and they can create opportunities for procuring cost-effective insurance coverage. Insurers may be able to capture insights into the long-term prospects of a company that are otherwise hidden. This is useful for assessing risk, gaining customer loyalty, and improving underwriting performance.
Insurance underwriting performance depends on appropriately assessing the risk profile of a company (and industry). The ROSI framework and associated data can enhance analyzing a company’s exposure to risks and the potential impacts of events that they are underwriting, such as catastrophe (floods, hurricanes), business interruption (supply chain disruptions), or product liability (recalls, accidents) losses. These analyses may also open the dialogue on what companies are doing to mitigate these challenges. For example, public company information on manufacturing and other critical locations can be mapped to drought-prone regions. Select ROSI data in our analysis, such as historical incidents in production disruptions or number of recalls along with the associated costs, can be the basis of forecast models that assess the likelihood and severity of losses under various future assumptions. Better assessments of probable outcomes and losses improves underwriting practices for insurers. Measuring the return of sustainability investment can contribute towards these improved practices and more sustainable businesses.
Originally published in: Sezgi, F., & Mair, J. (2010). To control or not control: A coordination perspective to scaling. In G. Dees, P. Bloom, & E. Skloot (Eds.), Scaling social impact—New directions in research (pp. 34–60). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Atz, U., Van Holt, T., Douglas, E., Whelan, T. (2021). The Return on Sustainability Investment (ROSI): Monetizing Financial Benefits of Sustainability Actions in Companies. In: Bali Swain, R., Sweet, S. (eds) Sustainable Consumption and Production, Volume II. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55285-5_14
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-55284-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-55285-5