Odiot

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

Odiot ^CR	Bloomberg MLODT FP
Luxury / France

Odiot has ultra-luxury credentials with profits to follow

Sustainability score

Company (Sector)
3.5 (5.1)

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	7/10	25%	More ...
Board geographic diversity	4/10	20%
Chairman vs. Executive split		5%

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

Social
Wage dispersion trend	0/10	5%	More ...
Job satisfaction	3/10	5%
Internal communication	10/10	5%

Sustainability score

3.5/10

100%

Governance score

Company (Sector)	Independent board
2.6 (5.5)	Yes

Parameters	Company	Sector	Score	Weight
Number of board members	6	12	9/10	5.0%
Board feminization (%)	0	41	1/10	5.0%
Board domestic density (%)	83	70	4/10	10.0%
Average age of board's members	N/A	57	0/10	5.0%
Type of company : Under family influence			4/10	10.0%
Independent directors rate	66	41	7/10	20.0%
One share, one vote				15.0%
Chairman vs. Executive split				5.0%
Chairman not ex executive				5.0%
Full disclosure on mgt pay				0.0%
Disclosure of performance anchor for bonus trigger				0.0%
Compensation committee reporting to board of directors				5.0%
Straightforward, clean by-laws				15.0%
Governance score			2.6/10	100.0%

Governance matters

Little is known about the governance beyond the active involvement of the owner and management. Mr. Trutat has extensive experience in financial matters and in managing precision mechanics and metallurgy micro-caps, and he appears to have the practical capabilities required to address the operational and production challenges typically faced by a business of this size.

Name (6)	Indep. (4/6)	Function	Completion of current mandate	Birth date	Date in	Date out	Fees / indemnity, in k€ (year)	Value of holding, in k€ (year)

Thierry BIGNET	M	Member	2024
Marc JOBERT	M	Member	2024
Laetitia MAFFEI	M	Member	2024
Yves POZZO DI BORGO	M	Member	2024
Emilie THÉBAULT	M	Member	2024
Gilles-Emmanuel TRUTAT	M	Member	2024

Changes to Board of directors : 17/06/2025

Name (6)	Indep. (4/6)	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)

Thierry BIGNET
Marc JOBERT
Laetitia MAFFEI
Yves POZZO DI BORGO
Emilie THÉBAULT
Gilles-Emmanuel TRUTAT

Name (2)				Function	Birth date	Date in	Date out	Compensation, in k€ (year)
Name (2)				Function	Birth date	Date in	Date out	Cash	Equity linked

Gilles-Emmanuel TRUTAT	M			CEO		2024
Laetitia MAFFEI	M			co-CEO		2024

Changes to Management : 17/06/2025

Existing committees

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

Environmental score

Company (Sector)
1.4 (4.5)

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	1/10	5/10	30%
Energy	2/10	5/10	25%
Waste	2/10	5/10	15%
Environmental score	1.4		100%

Environment matters

The environmental score is mediocre as Odiot SA is not in a position to suplly carbon and water data at this juncture

Environmental metrics

Energy (GJ) per €m in capital employed	CO₂ tons per €m in capital employed	Cubic meter water withdrawal per €m in capital employed	Tons waste generated per €m in capital employed

Odiot Consumer Durables

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)

adidas	2/10	1,790,201	135,814		301,906	26,382
Burberry	5/10	202,545	17,885	17,885	185,930
CEWE^BH	2/10	140,134	4,421	20,000		12,601
Electrolux	6/10	2,862,313	216,000		2,816,000	152,270
Haier Smart Home - D shares	6/10	5,110,537	650,677		5,822,925	115,132
Hermes International	6/10	841,446	52,257	22,000	628,000	18,717
HUGO BOSS	4/10	493,758	25,520		58,180	7,870
Husqvarna	9/10	963,090	27,722		477,445	24,013
Kering	8/10	1,566,302	43,480		870,384	23,331
Knaus Tabbert	4/10	143,741	3,222		48,343	8,934
LVMH	7/10	6,333,156	198,368	256,000	4,244,877	157,780
Moncler	5/10	224,240	20,140		5,428,118	1,700
Odiot^CR	1/10
Prada	7/10	376,585	31,567	31,567	422,500	2,951
PUMA	7/10	446,123	6,574		123,523	6,767
Richemont	7/10	1,167,505	20,630		2,557,443	15,403
Seb	2/10	n/a	211,978		2,654,000	57,616
Swatch	7/10	1,343,880	61,489		391,734	8,111
TomTom	6/10	32,130	1,393		8,670	134

MORE DATA

Social score

Company (Sector)
5.4 (6.2)

Social matters

The HR score is weakened by the lack of historical staffing data. Silversmiths seem however happy to deploy their experience under the new growth plans.

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	20%
Average wage trend	10/10	35%
Share of added value taken up by staff cost	1/10	25%
Share of added value taken up by taxes	1/10	20%
Wage dispersion trend	0/10	0%
Pension bonus (0 or 1)	0
Quantitative score	5.2/10	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	6/10	35%
Pay	0/10	20%
Job satisfaction	3/10	10%
Internal communication	10/10	10%

Qualitative score	5.9/10	100%

Sector figures

Company	Social Score	Quantitative score	Qualitative score	Staffing

CEWE^BH	7.8	7.8	7.9	4,038
Seb	7.3	6.7	8.6	32,785
LVMH	7.3	6.8	8.3	216,075
TomTom	6.9	7.4	6.1	3,561
Husqvarna	6.9	7.4	5.8	13,219
PUMA	6.7	5.3	9.7	17,735
Electrolux	6.6	8.0	4.0	40,379
adidas	6.6	5.2	9.7	63,276
Hermes International	6.6	5.0	10.0	26,696
Swatch	6.5	6.2	7.3	32,647
Prada	6.5	7.0	5.5	15,477
HUGO BOSS	6.2	4.5	9.7	24,000
Richemont	6.0	6.6	4.7	40,452
Knaus Tabbert	5.8	5.1	7.2	3,550
Moncler	5.4	4.5	7.1	7,074
Haier Smart Home - D shares	4.4	4.0	5.4	123,960
Burberry	4.4	4.9	3.3	8,005
Kering	4.2	4.1	4.4	45,991

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