Home

Translate

Open Translation

LONDON: Andrew Winston is coauthor with Paul Polman of ‘Net Positive: How Courageous Companies Thrive by Giving More Than They Take’. Just as fossil fuel companies should not lead the planning of our energy future, he suggests it is equally unwise to let finance lead the journey to a humane, more just, less greed-filled form of capitalism:


Over the 20 years I’ve worked at the intersection of business and society, I’ve seen many terms applied to this part of the business agenda: compliance, eco-efficiency, corporate social responsibility, socially responsible investing, green, clean, sustainability, regenerative, net zero, net positive, and many more.

Some variation in how we talk about all of this is helpful, but we also need some common language that’s both relatively easy to comprehend and interesting. In tech, for example, “blockchain” sounds much cooler than “a shared, immutable ledger for recording transactions.” In the realm of the overlap of business and society, sustainability has had the most staying power, often for lack of something more exciting.

But in recent years, ESG — which stands for environmental, social, and governance — has become the dominant term. Within the narrow world of the sustainability expert community, the battle royale is raging about sustainability versus ESG and the implications of shifting semantics. I don’t want to litigate what these words mean, but I do want to look at why ESG has taken over so fast and discuss some risks I see from the term’s adoption.

I think the core reason for the rise in the use of ESG is the investment community’s arrival on the sustainability scene, at long last. Investment in so-called ESG funds has skyrocketed, with well over US$1 trillion flooding into ESG funds in the past two years. ESG has been the language the money people use to distinguish investment funds that, in theory, screen companies for some level of sustainability performance or advantage.

That said, debate over whether funds that claim to be ESG focused are actually picking companies that do better by the world has led to a stupendous and justified backlash. Some people are even arguing that the traditionally excluded defense sector should now be included because weapons are being used to defend democracy in Ukraine.

That assertion is more than a little muddy, so clearly ESG has to evolve and get refined. These are important debates, and regulators are taking notice: The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a warning about these funds, noting the ‘rapid growth in demand, increasing number of ESG products and services, and lack of standardized and precise ESG definitions.’

Why are investors at the table now? I see three big reasons.

• First, the nature of the systemic risk that climate change poses is becoming clearer. Record-breaking droughts, floods, fires, and storms destroying communities and disrupting supply chains are hard to ignore. They are creating real costs to business, and regulators are moving quickly to mandate that companies understand and report on the material impacts of climate-related risks on their operations and strategies.

• Second, investors are feeling pressure from their stakeholders. In 2019, I spoke at an event for wealthy customers of a multinational bank. The bank’s global head of private wealth talked about a customer survey the bank had just conducted. They said that the No. 1 issue its private wealth clients cared about was no longer something like estate planning or portfolio mix; rather, it was impact investing and ESG. I’ve heard about this pressure from multiple sources, and I believe it’s coming largely from the younger members of wealthy families essentially saying to their grandparents, ‘OK, we have a lot of money, but what’s the point?’

• Finally, the biggest reason is economic opportunity. The shift to the clean economy is accelerating, and multi-trillion-dollar markets are in play — creating radical shifts in energy, transportation, food and agriculture, materials, consumer products, finance, and more. As Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, wrote last year, ‘There is no company whose business model won’t be profoundly affected by the transition to a net zero economy. … Companies that are not quickly preparing themselves will see their businesses and valuations suffer.’

All are affected, but some more than others. Investing in companies that provide or leverage clean technologies makes sense, given that they increasingly outcompete “dirty tech” companies. Preferring companies that take advantage of rapidly expanding markets and respond to customer demands is no do-gooder philanthropy — it’s good business. No investor would question increasing exposure to, say, AI technologies. Big trends draw big money, and the move to a carbon-free economy is as big a trend as they come.

With all those forces coming to bear, investors are here to stay. Even with the incredible chaos around defining ESG, it’s better to have finance people at the table than not. We can’t truly get momentum in corporate sustainability with investors on the sidelines; CEOs don’t feel much pressure unless investors want something. But I have a couple of concerns about the dominance of ESG as the rallying cry.

On the level of language, which can guide behavior and outcomes, the term ESG is fairly meaningless. It’s an acronym for categories of things companies should work on. That’s likely a part of why investors like it — they can look like they’re talking about real progress on environmental and social issues without saying much at all. Efforts can easily drop into incremental approaches that may be worse than nothing. As Paul Polman, my coauthor on the book Net Positive, likes to say, ‘So if I killed 10 people before but only five now, am I a better murderer?’

When a company announces, in essence, ‘We’re doing ESG,’ what does that tell you? It’s like saying ‘We do HR.’ OK, so you have a human resources department and a senior vice president running it, but what are you doing with your people? Investing in them? Helping them find their purpose? Or maybe laying off all permanent staff — over Zoom! — to replace them with temps?

We clearly need to imbue ESG with meaning. We need sustainable or regenerative or net-positive ESG. Of course, these terms also need details behind them, but at least they tell you something about the direction in which you’re headed.

But I have a larger philosophical concern with investor-led language. Seeing all things through the lens of markets and the quest for shareholder maximization is largely how we got into this mess in the first place. We’ve put profits above literally all else, and it’s leading to ecological collapse and vast inequality. Framing a company’s commitments around battling climate disaster in investor terms turns it into an exercise of ‘Does this create shareholder value?’ — which is not beside the point but skews the world dramatically. Sure, shareholders should do well, but only after a company has served a purpose for stakeholders and helped protect the world and resources we all rely on to survive and thrive.

Investors aren’t well positioned for this approach. Just as fossil fuel companies should not lead the planning of our energy future, it seems unwise to let finance lead the journey to a humane, more just, less greed-filled form of capitalism.

This isn’t all just semantics. If we talk mostly in broad terms about what we’re doing and not in concrete, science-based ways about how fast we need to cut carbon or improve human rights, where are we, exactly?

That said, even though I’m a writer, and words and rhetoric matter to me, I’ve always cared far more about outcomes. If your company’s carbon emissions are declining quickly and it’s paying living wages, working in its sector to find larger solutions, lobbying for the kinds of policies that help create systemic change, working to defend democracy and science, and so on … then you can call your efforts any number of things, so long as it works for you. Walmart, for example, has embraced becoming a 'regenerative' company — and if that motivates the organization, fantastic.

Either way, the moral and business imperative for leaders today is to focus on what really matters: action at the speed and scale we need to build a net-positive world.



(This comment appeared in the MITSloan Management Review on May 05.)
 
Story Type: News

Vote for my Story

Our Rating: 9% - 1 votes

1000 Characters left


Latest News

April 18, 2024
Biodiversity Editor

Humans face 19 percent drop in income from climate impact.

POTSDAM, Germany: According to scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), climate change is going to cost the world economy US$38 trillion a year annually to 2050. Based on empirical data from more than 1,600 regions worldwide over…
April 09, 2024
People Editor

Top European court says ignoring climate impact violates human rights

STRASBOURG: The European Court of Human Rights has, for the first time in law, acknowledged government failure to implement sufficient measures to combat climate change. A case brought by the Swiss Climate Seniors Association (SCSA) claimed Swiss authorities…
April 05, 2024
Transportation Editor

Watchdog claims box carriers profit from EU carbon emissions charge

BRUSSELS: Following the introduction of the world’s first carbon market for maritime shipping in January, a study by Transport & Environment (T&E) suggests container shipping companies are making significant profits from charging customers a surcharge to…
April 05, 2024
Emissions Editor

No change by fossil fuel producers since Paris Agreement

WASHINGTON, DC: According to new analysis, 80 percent of global CO2 emissions produced since the Paris Agreement have been the responsibility of 57 corporate and state entities. Countries and their state-owned companies account for 75 percent of the total…
March 19, 2024
Food Editor

Still butchering the planet

LONDON, UK: A report by environmental organisation Feedback says the world’s 55 largest industrial livestock companies have received over US$615 billion in financing since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2016. As of March 2023, it included US$287.8 billion…
February 28, 2024
People Editor

83 million Americans breathe unhealthy air

BROOKLYN, NY/SAN DIEGO, CA: A report from research and technology company First Street finds 83 million Americans are exposed annually to air quality thresholds categorized as “unhealthy” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Air Quality Index.…
February 22, 2024
People Editor

Nearly 50 million Americans deny climate change

ANN ARBOR, MI/CHICAGO, IL: A study by the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability (SEAS) has concluded 12-26 percent of Americans, depending on location, deny the reality of climate change. The researchers used Twitter (now X) data…
February 21, 2024
Biodiversity Editor

UAE renewables deal needs US$8 trillion

DUBAI/BERLIN: Abu Dhabi National Oil Company CEO and COP28 president Sultan Al-Jaber says he will work with the presidents-designate of COP29 (Azerbaijan) and COP30 (Brazil) to ensure the tripling of investment in renewables agreed in Dubai last December.…
February 19, 2024
People Editor

US$281 billion war profit in two years

LONDON: Five fossil fuel majors have made over US$281 billion net profit since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine two years ago. According to a new analysis by Global Witness, Shell, BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and TotalEnergies paid US$200 billion to shareholders in…
February 15, 2024
Manufacturing Editor

New CMA CGM feeder fleet designed for less CO2

MARSEILLE: CMA CGM has taken delivery of the first of 10 dual-use 2,000 TEU container vessels to operate on Mediterranean and Northern Europe routes. Initially powered by LNG to reduce sulfur oxide emissions by 99 percent, nitrogen oxide 92 percent and fine…
February 10, 2024
Biodiversity Editor

Greenland ice loss threatens collapse of Atlantic current

PASADENA, CA: A study published in Nature has found the Greenland Ice Sheet lost 20 percent more ice over the past four decades than previously thought. The conclusion follows a 2023 study in Earth System Science suggesting ice losses from Antarctica and…
February 09, 2024
Transportation Editor

Maersk first to have climate targets validated by SBTi

COPENHAGEN: The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) says Maersk’s greenhouse gas emissions’ (GHG) targets will meet the Paris Agreement 1.5˚C pathway. The validation is an industry first under SBTi’s new maritime guidance published in late 2022. Maersk’s…

We are using cookies

By continuing you are agreeing to our use of cookies

I understand