AlphaValue Corporate Services
This research has been commissioned and paid for by the company and is deemed to constitute an acceptable minor non-monetary benefit as defined in MiFID II

Crossject

CR
Bloomberg   ALCJ FP
Supergenerics  /  France  Web Site   |   Investors Relation
Things get going

Sustainability score
Company (Sector)
4.3 (5.0)

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

  Score Weight  
Governance   
Independent directors rate 8/10 25%More ...
Board geographic diversity 0/10 20%
Chairman vs. Executive split 5%
Environment   
CO² Emission 2/1025%More ...
Water withdrawal 1/1010%
Social   
Wage dispersion trend7/105%More ...
Job satisfaction10/105%
Internal communication10/105%


Sustainability score 4.3/10 100%  
Sustainability matters

As a small cap company, Crossject probably still pays less attention to ESG issues than larger groups at this stage. Still, a brief section of its annual report describes what the company considers as the seven fields where these concerns are doomed to rise in the future: governance (see the relevant section), human rights, the environment, working relations, ethics, local development and consumer related issues. The group also indicated that an ethical charter (particularly useful in the US context) had been released in FY20.


Environmental score
Company (Sector)
1.3 (3.9)
Data sets evaluated as trends on rolling calendar, made sector relative
ParametersScoreSectorWeight
CO² Emission2/104/10 30%
Water withdrawal1/104/10 30%
Energy1/104/10 25%
Waste1/104/10 15%
Environmental score1.3  100%
Environment matters

As a small cap company, Crossject still releases a very limited amount of information of this topic. The annual report briefly addresses some sustainability issues (see the related section), but it is clearly not unusual for a small cap company not to close too many details at this point in time.

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
Crossject Pharma
Sector figures
Company CountryEnvironment
score
Energy
(total,
in GJ)
CO2
Emissions
(in tons)
CO2
Compensation
(in tons)
Water
Withdrawal
(in m3)
Waste
(total,
(in tons)
        
AstraZeneca 8/105,889,712263,608 3,750,00025,493
ATAI Life Sciences BH 1/10     
Bachem BH 1/10155,7058,476 139,31514,439
Bayer 4/1035,010,0003,000,000053,000,0001,164,000
BB Biotech BH 1/10 33 3,4349
BioNTech 10/10153,6843,963075,0001,488
CrossjectCR 1/10     
CureVac 1/10     
Faes Farma 1/1052,1726,112 185,6851,517
Genmab 6/1011,257394 n/an/a
Grifols 6/103,205,764200,310 3,034,35544,954
GSK plc 5/109,932,400714,000 7,500,00057,200
H Lundbeck 10/10374,41427,173 219,15916,027
Hikma Pharmaceuticals 4/101,557,580123,144 1,175,22413,275
Idorsia BH 1/1039,006311 18,304243
Ipsen 8/10272,95518,810 94,4013,319
Lonza Group 3/106,269,000551,000028,628,00061,664
Merck 5/108,755,2001,667,000013,160,000371,000
Novartis 7/106,200,000298,100 34,600,00034,900
Novo Nordisk 9/103,784,00093,000 4,150,000189,091
Novonesis 6/104,840,000161,000 8,720,00020,500
PolyPeptide BH 1/10     
Roche Holding 7/109,403,000364,480 14,900,00023,674
Sandoz 6/101,776,30090,089 9,348,00517,404
Sanofi 7/1012,122,294536,804 11,600,000165,432
Siegfried BH 2/101,942,10065,130 5,985,00075,989
UCB 8/10932,60022,166 476,86610,858
Virbac 4/10299,68623,727 313,8405,380

Social score
Company (Sector)
4.7 (5.9)
Social matters

The level of information concerning social issues is also quite limited, not a real surprise for a small cap company. However, the group indicates that its equality index (Gaia index) reached 60/100 for FY22 vs 46 in FY21. The ESG Gaia Research rating agency rates the ESG performances of SMEs listed on the European markets, i.e. more than 2,300 companies, Also see the “Workforce section”.

Quantitative metrics (67%)
Set of staff related numerical metrics available in AlphaValue proprietary modelling aimed at ranking on social/HR matters
ParametersScoreWeight
Staffing Trend8/10 15%
Average wage trend3/10 30%
Share of added value taken up by staff cost1/10 20%
Share of added value taken up by taxes1/10 15%
Wage dispersion trend7/10 20%
Pension bonus (0 or 1)0
Quantitative score3.9/10 100%
Qualitative metrics (33%)
Set of listed qualitative criterias and for the analyst to tick

ParametersScoreWeight
Accidents at work4/10 25%
Human resources development8/10 35%
Pay3/10 20%
Job satisfaction10/10 10%
Internal communication10/10 10%
  
Qualitative score6.4/10 100%


Sector figures
CompanyCountrySocial Score Quantitative scoreQualitative scoreStaffing
      
Genmab 7.36.88.32,237
Bayer 7.26.98.0102,630
Lonza Group 7.27.17.618,665
BB Biotech BH 7.15.99.710.0
GSK plc 7.16.48.669,861
UCB 7.06.19.09,355
AstraZeneca 6.96.77.585,536
Novo Nordisk 6.75.88.768,091
Roche Holding 6.75.49.3103,346
Bachem BH 6.76.17.92,200
Sanofi 6.66.17.685,980
Novartis 6.55.97.975,296
Siegfried BH 6.55.58.74,012
Grifols 6.35.58.021,579
Hikma Pharmaceuticals 6.36.26.48,879
Virbac 6.24.99.05,743
Merck 6.06.45.365,629
PolyPeptide BH 5.96.94.01,240
H Lundbeck 5.94.98.05,617
Ipsen 5.94.68.75,110
Sandoz 5.55.75.121,638
BioNTech 5.45.74.84,790
Novonesis 5.34.37.27,690
Faes Farma 3.44.51.31,736
Idorsia BH 3.22.15.50.00
CureVac 2.72.43.3984
ATAI Life Sciences BH 1.21.90.00.00

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.