Chargeurs

This research has been commissioned and paid for by the company and does therefore not constitute an inducement caught by the prohibition under MiFID II

Chargeurs ^CR	Bloomberg CRI FP
Support Services / France	Web Site \| Investors Relation

From an industrialist to a luxury player

Sustainability score

Company (Sector)
2.5 (5.3)

Sustainability is made of analytical items contributing to the E, the S and the G, that can be highlighted as sustainability precursors and can be combined in an intellectually acceptable way. This is the only scale made available

More on Sustainability / ESG ...

	Score	Weight

Governance
Independent directors rate	5/10	25%	More ...
Board geographic diversity	0/10	20%
Chairman vs. Executive split		5%

Environment
CO² Emission	1/10	25%	More ...
Water withdrawal	2/10	10%

Social
Wage dispersion trend	6/10	5%	More ...
Job satisfaction	0/10	5%
Internal communication	10/10	5%

Sustainability score

2.5/10

100%

Sustainability matters

Chargeurs’ sustainability strategy

The Chargeurs Group’s sustainability strategy is in alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The Group has been a signatory of the UN Global Compact since 2017. In 2020, the Group launched a sustainability-linked Euro PP issue with two KPIs: reducing the frequency of work accidents and increasing the share of revenue from sustainable products and services. The Group’s strategy is built on 2 additional KPIs: reducing CO2 emissions and water consumption by production units. The progression in the group’s ESG performance is assessed by the independent rating agency EthiFinance (GAIA rating). Overall, Chargeurs is doing-well as testified by a 77/100 score in 2020 (vs 69 in 2019) outperforming the average 51/100 of the 230 companies in the Gaïa panel.

Governance score

Company (Sector)	Independent board
5.7 (6.9)	Yes

Parameters	Company	Sector	Score	Weight
Number of board members	6	9	9/10	5.0%
Board feminization (%)	50	40	10/10	5.0%
Board domestic density (%)	100	55	0/10	10.0%
Average age of board's members	59	59	6/10	5.0%
Type of company : Small cap, controlled			4/10	10.0%
Independent directors rate	50	52	5/10	20.0%
One share, one vote				10.0%
Chairman vs. Executive split				0.0%
Chairman not ex executive				5.0%
Full disclosure on mgt pay				5.0%
Disclosure of performance anchor for bonus trigger				5.0%
Compensation committee reporting to board of directors				5.0%
Straightforward, clean by-laws				15.0%
Governance score			5.7/10	100.0%

Governance matters

Since October 2015, the change of control has led to a change of governance with Mr Michaël Fribourg acting as Chairman and CEO whereas the previous set up was to split the Chairman and CEO positions. There are five new board members: Mr Fribourg, Mr Coquoin (an asset manager for the Habert-Dassault family office), Mr Urbain as a Columbus representative, Ms Cecilia Ragueneau and Ms Isabelle Guichot.

Mr Fribourg took over the full management of Chargeurs in a remarkably short time span by late 2015 and has since been shifting gears in the right direction with impressive results.

The striking aspect of the “new” Chargeurs is that it is new in its management style with a CEO keen to rebuild the growth potential of existing businesses through positive, entrepreneurial management. The eye remains keenly focused on the financial performance and a defensive balance sheet which is a hard act for anyone to execute.

Name (6)	Indep. (3/6)	Function	Completion of current mandate	Birth date	Date in	Date out	Fees / indemnity, in k€ (year)	Value of holding, in k€ (year)

Michaël FRIBOURG	M	President/Ch...	2021	1982	2015		0.00 (2023)
Emmanuel COQUOIN	M	Member	2022	1961	2015		77.7 (2023)
Isabelle GUICHOT	F	Member	2022	1966	2016		88.4 (2023)
Anne-Gabrielle HEILBRONNER	F	Member	2025	1954	2022		75.4 (2023)
Alexandra ROCCA	F	Member	2026		2023		52.2 (2023)
Nicolas URBAIN	M	Member	2023	1960	2015		77.3 (2023)
Eduardo MALONE	M	President/Ch...	2018	1949		2015
Salim Meir IBRAHIM	M	Member	2013		2007	2013	6.00 (2013)
Martine ODILLARD	F	Member	2017	1954	2011	2015
Giuseppe PIROLA	M	Member	2014			2014	10.0 (2012)
Cecilia RAGUENEAU	F	Member	2023	1973	2017	2023	17.6 (2023)
Catherine SABOURET	F	Member	2017	1950	2014	2017	48.8 (2016)
Jérôme SEYDOUX	M	Member	2016	1934		2015	10.0 (2012)
Maria VARCIU	F	Member	2022	1973	2019	2022	31.1 (2022)
Georges RALLI	M	Secretary	2022	1948	2013	2023	15.1 (2023)

Changes to Board of directors : 03/09/2024

Name (6)	Indep. (3/6)	Challenged (conflicted interests, distant or current)	Die hard (7 years or more)	Improbable (too young, disconnected profile)	Overloaded (too many boards, too old)	Specific agenda (gov. or staff rep)	Tied (family, business relations, executive)	Unknown (lack of history, short CV)

Michaël FRIBOURG
Emmanuel COQUOIN
Isabelle GUICHOT
Anne-Gabrielle HEILBRONNER
Alexandra ROCCA
Nicolas URBAIN

Name (9)				Function	Birth date	Date in	Date out	Compensation, in k€ (year)
Name (9)				Function	Birth date	Date in	Date out	Cash	Equity linked

Michaël FRIBOURG	M	CEO	1982	2015	1,673 (2023)
Olivier BUQUEN	M	Deputy CEO		2024	ND (2023)
Joelle FABRE-HOFFMEISTER	F	Deputy CEO		2024
Daniel LAURENT	M	Partner		2023
Delphine DE CANECAUDE	F	Executive Officer		2023
Carine DE KOENIGSWARTER	F	Executive Officer
Philippe DENOIX	M	Executive Officer		2023
Federico PAULLIER	M	Executive Officer	1960	2013
Gianluca TANZI	M	Executive Officer

Changes to Management : 19/07/2024

Existing committees

Audit / Governance Committee
Compensation committee
Financial Statements Committee
Litigation Committee
Nomination Committee
Safety committee
SRI / Environment

Environmental score

Company (Sector)
1.5 (4.4)

Data sets evaluated as trends on rolling calendar, made sector relative

More ...

Parameters	Score	Sector	Weight
CO² Emission	1/10	4/10	30%
Water withdrawal	2/10	4/10	30%
Energy	1/10	4/10	25%
Waste	2/10	4/10	15%
Environmental score	1.5		100%

Environment matters

On the environment pillar, Chargeurs registered a score of 92/100 in 2020 on the back of good management of water, air, land and waste. Chargeurs is aiming to increase the share of revenue generated by sustainable products and services. As of 2020, Chargeurs generated 15% of sales from sustainable products and services and is targeting a 100% share of revenue by 2030. The group is also aiming to improve its carbon footprint. In 2020, Chargeurs emissions amounted to c.52t of CO2, a 2% decrease compared to 2019. Concerning water consumption, Chargeurs’ goal is to reduce its consumption and implement integrated water resources management at all levels by 2030. In 2020, Chargeurs achieved a 28% decrease in its water consumption.

Environmental metrics

1,617 Energy (GJ) per €m in capital employed	133 CO² tons per €m in capital employed	1,014 Cubic meter water withdrawal per €m in capital employed	29 Tons waste generated per €m in capital employed

Chargeurs Support Services

Sector figures

Company	Environment score	Energy (total, in GJ)	CO2 Emissions (in tons)	CO2 Compensation (in tons)	Water Withdrawal (in m3)	Waste (total, (in tons)

Adecco	6/10	222,815	51,920
Bureau Veritas	4/10	984,802	149,325	2,157	1,076,000	20,069
Chargeurs^CR	1/10	655,200	54,000		411,000	11,716
DKSH	3/10	469,127	67,089
Eurofins Scientific	4/10	2,671,225	176,079	200,000	1,500,000
Experian	9/10	201,600	18,300		35,290	719
Randstad	6/10	1,188,379	58,200		280,000	1,500
Rentokil Initial	3/10	4,984,474	315,620	1,915
Securitas	5/10		147,906
SGS	3/10	3,413,347	112,029		2,051,434	70,348

MORE DATA

Social score

Company (Sector)
6.4 (6.2)

Social matters

Chargeurs social pillar is even more impressive than its environment pillar with a 100/100 score. Chargeurs is committed to a social strategy which revolves around four targets: safety of employees, diversity and inclusion, upholding human rights and employee training. To achieve these goals, the Group has developed a new on-site-based safety approach as well as a culture of safety with the Global Safety Day. It also has a talent sponsorship program and provides 100% of its full-time employees with health insurance. Chargeurs has also donated 80,000 masks and 10,000 liters of hand sanitizer to hospitals, nursing homes and non-profit organizations.

Quantitative metrics (67%)

Set of staff related numerical metrics available in AlphaValue proprietary modelling aimed at ranking on social/HR matters

More ...

Parameters	Score	Weight
Staffing Trend	6/10	15%
Average wage trend	5/10	30%
Share of added value taken up by staff cost	5/10	20%
Share of added value taken up by taxes	3/10	15%
Wage dispersion trend	6/10	20%
Pension bonus (0 or 1)	0
Quantitative score	5.1/10	100%

Qualitative metrics (33%)

Set of listed qualitative criterias and for the analyst to tick

More ...

Parameters	Score	Weight
Accidents at work	10/10	25%
Human resources development	10/10	35%
Pay	10/10	20%
Job satisfaction	0/10	10%
Internal communication	10/10	10%

Qualitative score	9.0/10	100%

Sector figures

Company	Social Score	Quantitative score	Qualitative score	Staffing

Rentokil Initial	7.0	6.4	8.3	66,729
Randstad	6.7	5.5	9.3	42,690
Securitas	6.7	7.9	4.2	284,400
Bureau Veritas	6.6	5.6	8.6	81,919
SGS	6.2	4.5	9.7	99,530
Experian	6.0	5.5	7.2	22,041
DKSH	5.9	6.1	5.5	27,603
Adecco	5.6	5.3	6.4	37,439
Eurofins Scientific	5.3	5.9	4.1	58,470

MORE DATA

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.

Comment