尽职调查中的环境因素

你的收购与兼并的尽职调查中含有可持续发展和气候变化部分吗？答案是你应该包含进去。这两项内容逐渐成为能促进交易的完成或实现重大突破的因素。忽略这些内容会导致你的交易产生风险。

毕马威的Eric Collard 认为： “可持续发展现在已经成为在交易前期尽职调查的重要评估因素。”正确的尽职调查应该考虑环境因素，而这些因素不会在资产负债表中反映。法律、金融和运营尽职调查都应将环境因素考虑进去。未被发现的问题可能会影响交易的结构和定价。

在尽职调查中应该考虑下面五个问题：

高级管理层对于可持续发展的态度是什么？

股东最近的决议是否考虑可持续发展的问题？

是否有非营利组织对于公司的环境政策提出质疑？

目标公司对碳排放交易和新环境政策的暴露程度如何？

目标公司对气候变化相关风险的暴露程度如何？

德勤发展的一份报告指出：“很明显，在对潜在的收购与兼并交易的估值时，如果增加对可持续发展的相关因素的考虑，可以提高交易成功的可能性。”公司文化的差异是收购与兼并交易失败的首要原因之一。高估管理层对可持续发展的看法会导致失败。

假设两个同行业的公司打算合并。A公司的废弃物对环境污染严重并且不设有企业社会责任部门，对于政府规定持观望态度，并且照常处理废弃物。B公司的总裁及员工积极支持可持续发展做法，主动配合立法部门建立制度，并且改变生产流程。A公司的学习曲线和抵抗情绪会给合并造成障碍。为什么呢？因为正确实施的可持续发展策略是公司商业模式中不可分割的一部分。它影响到绩效评估、成本分析和财务预算。不同的商业模式会对合并造成困难，甚至导致合并失败。

公司利益相关者的情绪也可以被看成警告信号。利益相关者迫使公司实行可持续发展的意愿越来越强烈。公司面对内部抵触情绪和外部压力的程度将决定公司成长的能力。以埃克森美孚和丰田公司对于气候变化的态度为例。必须在尽职调查中包含股东和利益相关者的意见样本。如果目标公司对股东关于可持续发展决议抵触强烈，那么可以预见公司面临逐渐增加和耗资巨大的重组风险。

公司尽管已经对可持续发展提高重视，但仍然在忽略气候变化将导致的客观环境风险与经济风险。当总裁们想到气候变化风险时，他们马上会联想到碳排放法规。美国政府为了减少二氧化碳排放而制定的法规会影响公司的底线，但这只是问题的一部分。气候变化导致客观环境的变化已经影响了很多行业。农业和水产养殖业的区域正在发生变化，淡水的供应发生变化，保险公司或提高价格，或完全放弃这些行业，运输路线也相应改变。尽管气候变化会通过资产折旧、保险费率、资源的可获得性和土地价值影响所有公司，目标公司如果对问题的认识较晚，那么还是会丧失机会。

考虑如下例子。你在权衡购买两个工厂中的一个。两个工厂的大小和产品都相同，资产负债表也一样。但是两个工厂地点不同，一个工厂沿海而另一个在山区。地理位置的不同使得气候因素成为进行决策的重要考虑方面。A工厂面临的内部风险包括海平面上升、暴风雨频发、保险开支增加和维护保养预算增加。它还面临外部威胁，包括客户基础减少、运输延迟增加、土地贬值和政府不履行义务。B工厂只面临保险费率上涨和干旱的风险，并且不确定干旱是否会影响运营。账面上两个工厂看起来一样，实际上投资A工厂风险更大。

在尽职调查中忽略可持续发展和气候变化的影响，后果将不可承受。

[---分页标志符---]

以下为文章的英文原文：

Is sustainability and climate change part of your M&A due diligence? It should be. Both have emerged as factors which can make or break a deal. Dealmakers that aren’t aware of these twin issues increasingly put their deals at risk.

“Sustainability has now become a key factor against which a target business is assessed in the pre-deal due diligence process,” says Eric Collard of KPMG. Proper due diligence is necessary to expose environmental issues which would not otherwise appear on balance sheets. Environmental issues should be considered during legal due diligence, financial due diligence, and operational due diligence.  Issues unearthed here will effect both the structure and pricing of the deal.

The following five questions must be asked during due diligence:

What is top management’s attitude toward sustainability?
What recent shareholder resolutions have called for sustainability?
Have any NGOs expressed concerns about the company’s environmental policies?
What is the target’s exposure to carbon markets and new regulations?
What is the target’s exposure to climate change related risks?

“It is clear that greater consideration of sustainability related issues when evaluating potential M&A transactions will help improve the likelihood of the success of the deal,” said a report by Deloitte Development. One of the primary reasons M&A deals fall apart is differences in corporate culture. Overlooking the attitudes of management regarding sustainability could pose disastrous.

Consider two companies in similar industries preparing to merge. Company A is a heavy polluter with no CSR department, a wait-and-see attitude toward government regulation, and a business-as-usual attitude toward their waste. Company B’s CEO and staff are enthusiastically devoted to sustainable practices, actively works with legislatures to form regulatory policy, and implements cradle-to-cradle manufacturing. Company A’s learning curve and resistance will pose a considerable cultural hurdle to integration. Why? When done properly, sustainability is inseparable from the business model. It influences performance reviews, cost analysis, budgets, and planning. Merging these two divergent business models would prove cumbersome at best, impossible at worst.

Stakeholder sentiment should serve as a warning sign as well. Stakeholder pressure to adopt sustainability continues to grow. The corporation’s amount of internal resistance to this external pressure will determine their ability to grow. As illustration, consider the attitudes toward climate change present in Exxon versus Toyota. It is imperative that due diligence include a sampling of shareholder and stakeholder sentiment. If the target strongly resists shareholder resolutions for sustainability, this should be a red flag of mounting, and costly, restructuring to come.

While sustainability awareness has increased, the physical and economic risks of climate change remain largely ignored. When CEOs think of climate change risk, they immediately think of carbon regulation. Washington’s recent efforts to implement regulatory measures to reduce carbon emissions will certainly impact the bottom line, but this is only half of the equation.  The physical effects of climate change have already begun for many industries. Agriculture and aquaculture zones are shifting, availability to water is changing, insurance companies are raising rates or leaving markets entirely, and transportation routes are evolving. Even now climate change affects all companies through asset depreciation, insurance premiums, resource availability, and land values. A target that is slow to recognize this may be missing the boat.

Consider the following example. You are weighing the purchase of one of two factories. Each factory is the same size, produces the same product, and appears equal on balance sheets. They only differ by location, with Factory A located in a lowland coastal area and Factory B located in the mountains. This geographical difference should make climate factors prominent in decision making. Factory A faces internal risks from rising sea levels, increased storm activity, dramatically increased insurance premiums, and increased maintenance budgets. It also faces local external threats from a decreasing customer base, increased transportation delays, decreased land value, and increased risk of government defaults. Factory B faces only rising insurance premiums and the external risk of increased drought, which may or may not affect operations. On paper, the finances of Factory A and B may appear equal, but it is clear Company A is a far greater investment risk.

Dealmakers cannot afford to ignore sustainability issues and climate change impacts during due diligence.