MyHotelMatch | MHM FP | Travel Services | France | Sustainability / ESG

Sustainability score

Company (Sector)
2.2 (5.2)

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	2/10	25%	More ...
Board geographic diversity	4/10	20%
Chairman vs. Executive split		5%

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

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

Sustainability score

2.2/10

100%

Sustainability matters

Sustainability of the activity

By extension, the development model can be considered sustainable. In run rate, the application consumes few incremental resources. MHM has the opportunity to promote sustainable tourism by favouring green tourism by nature (type of accommodation) or proximity (limitation of carbon emissions).

MHM reporting

As MHM’s activity is embryonic, the company does not publish an environmental report.

Environmental score

Company (Sector)
1.5 (3.9)

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

More ...

Parameters	Score	Sector	Weight
CO² Emission	1/10	5/10	30%
Water withdrawal	2/10	4/10	30%
Energy	1/10	4/10	25%
Waste	2/10	3/10	15%
Environmental score	1.5		100%

Environment matters

Direct impact

As a service business with a high technical and technological content (IT, algorithms, data management), the impact on the environment concerning scope 1 & scope 2 is reduced to the operation of the application: energy (mainly electricity) and data storage (datacentre). We do not consider that the environmental costs associated with the hotel business are part of MHM’s scopes 1&2. As a simple intermediary between the consumer and the hotelier, the responsibility for scope 3 lies with the first two.

Indirect impact

The models for optimising the use of infrastructure help to limit the development of under-utilised (cold bed type) or under-performing assets. They are therefore by nature considered to have a positive impact on the environment. Nevertheless, this effect cannot be quantified.

Through the creation of “sub-communities”, MHM has the opportunity to highlight and promote low environmental impact accommodation models.

MHM environmental reporting

Because MHM’s business is in its infancy, the company does not publish an environmental report. It does not publish forecasts of emissions of any kind. The production of waste and the consumption of water in scopes 1 and 2 can nevertheless be anticipated as marginal even in the mature phase of the project.

Environmental metrics

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

MyHotelMatch Hotel, Catering & Leisure

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)

AccorHotels	2/10	49,363,200	3,643,000		105,000,000	200,000
Compass	6/10	2,831,762	196,996
Elior	7/10	433,786	54,000		260,723
Entain	10/10	418,369	31,318		n/a	4,123
Flutter Entertainment	6/10	178,942	18,342		n/a	n/a
Intercontinental Hotels Group	2/10	51,426,324	2,662,434		123,587,331	829,424
J D Wetherspoon	5/10	1,617,932	114,883			52,781
La Française des Jeux	9/10	75,814	1,494		14,965
Melia Hotels International	7/10	1,623,368	139,509		8,578,000	19,863
Minor Hotels Europe & Americas	7/10	1,965,924	83,953	3,026	3,783,672	20,550
Mitchells & Butlers	5/10	2,704,406	160,227
MyHotelMatch^CR	1/10	n/a			n/a	n/a
OPAP	10/10	35,921	3,352		67,591	1,219
Sodexo	8/10	1,841,940	104,184		3,411,298
TUI Group	1/10	81,337,550	5,953,187
Whitbread	8/10	2,571,942	152,965		5,659,000	n/a

MORE DATA

Social score

Company (Sector)
2.9 (6.3)

Social matters

Team

MHM has built a small team in “commando format” to complete the development of the platform and prepare for launch. Following the acquisition of MyAgency, the number of direct employees of the group is expected to be in the range of 30-33. With the launch of the application, we expect the number of employees (backoffice, moderation, IT maintenance, payment) to increase to around 50-60 by the time it reaches breakeven. This figure does not take into account the possibility of using staff via external subcontractors (SSII) or an international deployment.

Social reporting MHM

As MHM’s activity is in its infancy, the company does not publish a social report. The remuneration policies are not known to date, nor their structure (internal / external to MHM). To our knowledge, at the end of 2021, there were no specific regulated agreements to be continued in 2023.

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	4/10	20%
Average wage trend	1/10	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	1.6/10	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	0/10	10%
Internal communication	10/10	10%

Qualitative score	5.6/10	100%

Sector figures

Company	Social Score	Quantitative score	Qualitative score	Staffing

J D Wetherspoon	7.9	6.9	10.0	41,786
Sodexo	7.5	6.7	9.3	444,129
Minor Hotels Europe & Americas	7.3	6.2	9.7	12,610
Mitchells & Butlers	7.2	7.1	7.6	50,259
Compass	7.1	5.9	9.7	605,712
Whitbread	7.0	6.5	8.3	39,795
TUI Group	6.8	6.5	7.6	69,338
Melia Hotels International	6.8	5.6	9.3	19,377
AccorHotels	6.1	4.3	9.7	353,190
Flutter Entertainment	5.8	4.7	8.3	23,699
Intercontinental Hotels Group	5.6	5.0	6.8	29,519
Entain	5.5	5.0	6.6	30,638
Elior	4.8	5.6	3.3	136,103
La Française des Jeux	4.6	4.0	5.9	3,338
OPAP	4.0	3.7	4.7	1,884

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.