The Siren Song of Sustainability: The Theocratic Trifecta's Third Leg!

    You might know, by now, of my views on ESG, which I have described as an empty acronym, born in sanctimony, nurtured in hypocrisy and sold with sophistry. My voyage with ESG began with curiosity in my 2019 exploration of what it purported to measure, turned to cynicism as the answers to the Cui Bono (who benefits) question became clear and has curdled into something close to contempt, as ESG advocates rewrote history and retroactively changed their measurements in recent years. Late last year, I looked at impact investing, as a subset of ESG investing, and chronicled the trillions put into fighting climate change, and the absence of impact from that spending. Sometime before these assessments, I also looked at the notion of stakeholder wealth maximization as an idea that only corporate lawyers and strategists would love, and argued that there is a reason, in conventional businesses to stay focused on shareholders. With each of these topics (ESG, impact investing, stakeholder wealth maximization), the response that I got from some of the strongest defenders was that "sustainability" is the ultimate end game, and that the fault has been in execution (in ESG and impact investing), and not in the core idea.  

    I was curious about what sets sustainability apart from the critiqued ideas, as well as skeptical, since the cast of characters (individual and entities) in the sustainability sales pitch seems much the same as for the ESG and impact investing sales pitches.  In critiquing sustainability, I may be swimming against the tide, but less so than I was five years ago, when I first wrote about these issues. In fact, in my first post on ESG, I confessed that I risked being labeled as a "moral troglodyte" for my views, and I am sure that my subsequent posts have made that a reality, but I have a thick skin. This post on sustainability will, if it is read, draw withering scorn from the righteous, and take me off their party invite list, but I don't like parties anyway.

Sustainability: The What, the Why and the Who?

    I have been in business and markets for more than four decades, and while sustainability as an end game has existed through that period, but much of that time, it was in the context of the planet, not for businesses. It is in the last two decades that corporate sustainability has become a term that you see in academic and business circles, albeit with definitions that vary across users. Before we look at how those definitions have evolved, it is instructive to start with three measures of sustainability, measuring (in my view) very different things:

• Planet sustainability, measuring how our actions, as consumers and businesses, affect the planet, and our collective welfare and well being. This, of course, covers everything from climate change to health care to income inequality.
• Product sustainability, measuring how long a product or service from a business can be used effectively, before becoming useless or waste. In a throw-away world, where planned obsolescence seems to be built into every product or service, there are consumers and governments who care about product sustainability, albeit for different reasons.
• Business or corporate sustainability, measuring the life of a business or company, and actions that can extend or constrict that life. 

There are corporate sustainability advocates who will argue that it covers all of the above, and that a business that wants to increase its sustainability has to make more sustainable products, and that doing so will improve planet sustainability. That may be true, in some cases, but in many, there will be conflicts. A company that makes shaving razors may be able to create razor blades that stay sharp forever, and need no replacement, but that increased product sustainability may crimp corporate sustainability. In the same vein, there may be some companies (and you can let your priors guide you in naming them), whose very existence puts the planet at risk, and if planet sustainability is the end game, the best thing that can happen is for these companies to cease to exist. 

    

    Which of these measures of sustainability lies at the heart of corporate sustainability, as practiced today? To get the answers, I looked at a variety of players in the sustainability game, and will use their own words in the description, lest I be accused of taking them out of context:

• Business schools around the world have discovered that sustainability classes not only draw well, and improve their rankings (especially with the Financial Times, which seems to have a fetish with the concept), but are also money makers when constructed as executive classes. NYU, the institution that I teach at, has an executive corporate sustainability course, with certification costing $2,200, but I will quote the Vanderbilt University course description instead, where for a $3,000 price tag, you can get a certificate in corporate sustainability, which is described as " a holistic approach to conducting business while achieving long-term environmental, social, and economic sustainability." 
• Academia: I read through seminal and impactful (as academics, we are fond of both words, with the latter measured in citations) papers on corporate sustainability, to examine how they defined and measured sustainability. A 2003 paper on corporate sustainability describes it as recognizing that "corporate growth and profitability are important, it also requires the corporation to pursue societal goals, specifically those relating to sustainable development — environmental protection, social justice and equity, and economic development." In the last two decades, it is estimated that there have been more than twelve thousand articles published on corporate sustainability, and while the definition has remained resilient, it has developed offshoots and variants.
• Corporate/Business: Companies, around the world, were quick to jump onto the sustainability bandwagon, and sustainability (or something to that effect) is part of many corporate mission statements. The Hartford, a US insurance company, describes corporate sustainability as centered "around developing business strategies and solutions to serve the needs of our stakeholders, while embracing the necessary innovation and foresight to ensure we are able to meet those needs in the decades to come."
• Governments: Governments have also joined the party, and the EU has been the frontrunner, and its definition of corporate sustainability as "integrating social, environmental, ethical, consumer, and human rights concerns into their business strategy and operations" has become the basis for both disclosure and regulatory actions. The Canadian government has used to EU model to create a corporate sustainability reporting directive, requiring companies to report on and spend more on a host on environmental, social and governance indicators. 

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but all of these definitions seem to be centered around planet sustainability, with varying motivations for why businesses should act on that front, from clean consciences (it is the right thing to do) to being "good for business" (if you do it, you will become more profitable and valuable).

    While corporate sustainability has taken center stage in the last two decades, it is part of a discussion about the social responsibilities of businesses that has been around for centuries. From Adam Smith's description of economics as the "gospel of mammon" in the 1700s to Milton Friedman's full-throated defense of business in the 1970s, it can be argued that almost every debate about businesses has included discussions of what they should do for society, beyond just following the law. That said, corporate sustainability (and its offshoots) have clearly taken a more central role in business  than ever before, and one manifestation is in the rise of "corporate sustainability officers" (CSOs) at many large companies. A PwC survey of 1640 companies in 62 countries, in 2022, found that the number of companies with CSOs tripled in 2021, with about 30% of all companies having someone in that position. A Conference Board survey of hundred sustainability leaders (take the sample bias into account) of the state of corporate sustainability pointed to the expectation that sustainability teams at companies would continue to grow over time. Finally, going back to academia, an indicator of the buzz in buzzwords, a survey paper in 2022 noted the rise in the number of corporate-sustainability related articles in recent years, as well as documenting their focus:

Burbano, Delma and Cobo (2022)

Note that much of the surge in articles came from ESG, which at least for the bulk of this period marched in lockstep with sustainability. Reflecting that twinning, many of the papers on corporate sustainability, just like the papers on ESG, were framed as sustainability being not just good for society but also good for the companies that adopted them. 

    I will admit that I have no idea what a CSO is or does, but I did get a chance to find out for myself, when I was invited to give a talk to the CSOs of fifty large companies. I started that session with a  question, born entirely out of curiosity, to the audience of what they did, at their respective organizations. After about twenty minutes of discussion, it was very clear that there was no consensus answer. In fact, some were as in the dark, as I was, about a CSO's responsibilities and role, and among the many and sometimes convoluted and contradictory answers I heard, here was my categorization of potential CSO roles:

1. CSO as Yoda: Some of the CSOs described their role as providing vision and guidance to the companies they worked at, about the societal effects of their actions, and doing so with a long term perspective. In short, even though they did not make this explicit, they were projecting that they had the training and foresight on how the company and society would evolve over time, and advice the company on the actions that it would need to take to match that evolution. I was tempted, though I restrained myself, to ask what training they had to be such receptacles of wisdom, since a degree or certification in sustainability clearly would not do the trick. I did dig into Star Wars lore, where it is estimated that it takes a decade or two of intense training to become a Jedi, and left open the possibility that there may be an institution somewhere that is turning out sustainability jedis.
2. CSO as Jiminy Cricket: I am a fan of Disney movies, and Pinocchio, while not one of the best known, remains one of my favorites. If you have watched the movie, Jiminy Cricket is the character that sits on Pinocchio's shoulder and acts as his conscience, and for some of the CSOs in the audience, that seemed to be the template, i.e., to act as corporate consciences, reminding the companies that they work for, of the social effects of their actions. The problem, of course, is that like the Jiminy Cricket in the movie, they get tagged as relentless scolds, usually get ignored, and get little glory, even when proved right. 
3. CSO as PR Genius: There were a few CSOs who were open about the fact that they were effectively marketing fronts for companies, with the job of taking actions that could not remotely be argued as being good for the planet and selling them as such. I am not sure whether Unilever's CSO was involved in the process, but the company's push to have each of its four hundred brands have a social or environmental purpose would have fallen into this realm. 
4. CSO as Embalmer: Finally, there were some CSOs who argued that it was their job to ensure that the company would live longer, perhaps even forever. If you are familiar with my work on corporate life cycles, I believe that not much good comes from companies surviving as “walking dead” entities, but in a world where survival at any cost is viewed as success, it is a by product. 

Here are the roles in table form, with the training that would prepare you best for each one:

I am sure that I am missing some of the nuance in sustainability, but if so, remember that nuance does not survive well in business contexts, where a version of Gresham's law is at work, with the worst motives driving out the best.

Sustainability and ESG

    In the last two or three years, corporate sustainability advocates have tried to distance themselves from ESG, arguing that the faults of ESG are of its own doing, and came from ignoring sustainability lessons. I am sorry, but I don't buy it. If ESG did not exist, sustainability would have had to invent it, because much of the growth in sustainability as a money-maker has come from its ESG arm. As I see it, ESG took the abstractions of corporate sustainability and converted them into a score, and it was that much maligned scoring mechanism that caused a surge of adoptions both in corporate boardrooms and among the investment community. It is worth noting that both ESG and sustainability draw their rationale from stakeholder wealth maximization, with the core thesis being that businesses should be run for the benefit of all stakeholders, rather than “just” for shareholders. It is in this context that I used the "theocratic trifecta" to describe how ESG, sustainability and stakeholder wealth are linked, and have been marketed. 

I use the word “theocratic” deliberately, since like theocrats in every domain, some in the sustainability space believe that they own the high ground on virtue, and view dissent as almost sacrilegious. 

    While a scoring mechanism, by itself, can be viewed as having a good purpose, i.e., to create a measure of how much a company is moving towards it sustainability goals, and to hold it accountable, it creates natural consequences that come with all scoring mechanisms:

• Measurers claiming to be objective arbiters, when the truth is that all scores require subjective judgments about what comprises goodness, and the consequences for business profitability and value.
• Businesses that start to understand the scoring process and factors, and then game the scoring systems to improve their scores. Greenwashing is a feature of these scoring systems, not a bug, and the more you try to refine the scoring, the more sophisticated the gaming will become.
• Advocates wringing their hands about the gaming, and arguing that the answer is more detailed definitions of things that defy definition, not recognizing (or perhaps not caring) that this just feeds the cycle and creates even more gaming.

With ESG, we have seen this process play out in destructive ways, with the scoring services (Sustainalytics, S&P, Refinitiv) using not only different criteria to come up with scores, but also changing those criteria in time and companies with the most resources to do so gaming those scoring systems to deliver better ESG scores. Accountants and regulators have added to the mix, by increasing disclosure requirements on almost every aspect of ESG, with little or no tangible benefits to show in terms of actual change.

   Taking a step back and looking at ESG and sustainability as concepts, they share many of the same characteristics:

1. They are opaque: Both ESG and sustainability are opaque to the point of obfuscation, perhaps because it serves the interests of advocates, who can then market them in whatever form they want to. To the pushback from defenders that the details are being nailed down or that there are new standards in place or coming, the argument runs hollow because the end game seems to keep changing. With ESG, for instance, the end game when it was initiated was making the world a better place (doing good), which evolved to generating alpha (excess returns for investors), on to being a risk measure before converting on a disclosure requirement. Defenders argue that there will be convergence driven by tighter definitions from regulators and rule makers, and the EU, in particular, has been in the lead on this front, putting out a Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) in 2022,  outlining economic activities that contribute to meeting the EU’s environmental objectives. While ESG advocates may be right about convergence, looking to the the bureaucracy in Brussels to have the good sense (on economics and sustainability) to get this right is analogous to asking a long-time vegan where you can get the best steak in town. 
2. They are rooted in virtue: While some of the advocates for ESG and sustainability have now steered away from goodness as an argument for their use, almost every debate about the two topics eventually ends up with advocates claiming to be on the side of good, with critics consigned to the dark side. 
3. Disclosures, over actions:  The path for purpose-driven concepts (sustainability, ESG) seems to follow a familiar arc. They start with the endgame of making the world a better place, are marketed with the pitch that purpose and profits go together (the original sin) and when the lie is exposed, are repackaged as being about disclosures that can be used by consumers and investors to make informed judgments. Both ESG and sustainability have traversed this path, and both seem to be approaching the "it's all about disclosure" phase of the cycle. While that seems like a reasonable outcome, since almost everyone is in favor of more information, there are two downsides to this disclosure drive. The first is that disclosure can become not just a substitute for acting, but an impediment to the change that makes a difference. The second is that as disclosures become more extensive, there is a tipping point, especially as the consequential disclosures are mixed in with minor ones, where users start ignoring the disclosure, effectively removing their information value. 
4. Underplay or ignore sacrifice: Of all the mistakes, the biggest one made in the sales pitch for ESG and sustainability was that you could eat your cake, and have it too. Companies were told that being sustainable would make them more profitable and valuable, investors were sold on the notion that investing in good companies would deliver higher or extra returns and consumers were informed that they could make sustainable choices, with little or no additional cost. The truth is that sustainability will be costly to businesses, investors, and consumers, and why should that surprise us? Through history, being good has always required sacrifice, and it was always hubris to argue that you could upend that history, with ESG and sustainability.

Notwithstanding the money, time and resources that have been poured into ESG and sustainability, there is little in terms of real change on any of the societal or climate problems that they purport to want to change. 

Can sustainability be saved?

    

    I may be a moral troglodyte, because of my views on ESG, sustainability and all things good, but we have a shared interest in making the world a better place, and that leads to  the question of whether corporate sustainability, or at least the mission that it espouses, can be salvaged. I believe that there is a path forward, but it requires steps that many sustainability purists may find anathema:

1. Be clear eyed about what can be achieved at the business level: There is truth to the Milton Friedman adage that the business of business is business, not filling in for social needs or catering to non-business interests. It is true that there are actions that businesses take that can create costs to society, and even if the law does not require it, it behooves us to get businesses to behave better, without asking them to do what governments and regulators should be doing.  For business sustainability to deliver results, that line between business and government action has to be made clearer, and adhered to in practice.
2. Open about the costs to businesses of meeting sustainability goals: Be real about the sacrifices in profitability and value that will be needed for a company to do what's good for society. To the extent that in a publicly traded company, it is not the managers, but one of the stakeholders (shareholders, bondholders, employees or customer), who bear this cost, you need buy in from them, if the sustainability actions are voluntary. For companies that are well managed and have done well for their stakeholders, the sacrifice may be easier to sell, but for badly managed businesses, it will be, and should be, a steeper hill to climb. To the extent that corporate executives and fund managers choose to create costs for others (shareholders in a company, investors in a fund), without their buy in, there is clearly a violation of fiduciary duty that will and should leave them exposed to legal consequences.
3. Clear about who bears these costs: I was recently asked to give testimony to a Canadian parliamentary committee that was considering ways of getting banks to contribute to fighting climate change (by lending less to fossil fuel companies and more to green energy firms), and much of what I heard from committee members and the other experts was about how banks would bear the costs. The truth is that when a bank is either restricted from a  profit-making activity (lending to fossil fuel companies) or forced to subsidize a money-losing activity (lending at below-market rates to green energy companies), the costs are borne by either the bank's shareholders or depositors, or, in some cases, by taxpayers. In fact, given that bank equity is such a small slice of overall capital, it is bank depositors who will be burdened the most by bank lending mandates, and that opens the door to bank failures and worse. 
4. And honest about cost sharing: One of the benefits of recognizing that being good (for the planet or society) creates costs is that we can then also follow up by looking at who bears the costs. It is my view that for much of the past few decades, we (as academics, policy makers and regulators) been far too quick to decide what works for the "greater good", at least as we see it, and oblivious to the reality that the costs of delivering that greater good are borne by the people who can least afford it. 
5. Above all,  drain the gravy train: Both ESG and sustainability have been contaminated by the many people and entities that have benefited monetarily from their existence. The path to making sustainability matter has to start by removing the grifters, many masquerading as academics and experts, from the space. I won’t name names, but if you want to see who you should be putting on that grifter list, many of them will be at the annual extravaganza called COP29, where the useful idiots and feckless knaves who inhabit this space will fly in from distant places to Azerbaijan, to lecture the rest of us on how to minimize our carbon footprint. If you are a business that cares about the planet, fire your sustainability consultants and stop bending business models to meet disclosure needs, and while you are at it, you may want to get rid of your CSO (if you have one), unless you happen to have Yoda on your payroll. 

In all of this discussion, there is a real problem that no one in the space seems to be willing to accept or admit to, and that is much as we (as consumers, investors and voters) claim to care about social good, we are unwilling to burden ourselves, even slightly (by paying higher prices or taxes), to deliver that good. It could be because we are callous, or have become so, but I think the true reason is that we have lost trust in experts, governments and institutions, and who can blame us?  Whether it is the city of San Diego, where I live, trying to increase sales taxes by half a percent or a government imposing a carbon tax, taxpayers seem disinclined to given governments the benefit of doubt, given their history of inefficiencies and broken promises. 

    One argument that I have heard from many advocates for ESG and sustainability is that the pushback against these ideas is coming primarily from the United States, and that much of the rest of the world has bought in to their necessity and utility. If  these people leave the ivory towers and echo chambers that they inhabit, and talk to people in their own environs, they will recognize that the loss of trust is a global phenomenon, and that any consensus that exists is on the surface. There are many reasons that incumbent governments in Canada and Germany (both "leaders" in the climate change fight) are facing the political abyss in upcoming elections, but one reason is the "we know best" arrogance embedded in their climate change strictures and laws, combined with the insulting pitch that the people most affected by these laws will not feel the pain. 

    How do we get trust in institutions back? It will not come from lecturing people on their moral shortcomings (as many will undoubtedly do to me, after reading this) or by gaslighting them (telling them that they are better off when they are clearly and materially not). It will require humility, where the agents of change (academics, governments, regulators) are transparent about what they hope to accomplish, and the costs of and uncertainties about reaching those objectives, and patience, where incremental change takes precedence over seismic or revolutionary change. 

YouTube Video

My posts on ESG, impact investing and stakeholder wealth

1. From Shareholder Wealth to Stakeholder Interests: CEO Capitulation or Empty Doublespeak? (August 2019)
2. Sounding Good or Doing Good? A Skeptical Look at ESG (September 2020)
3. The ESG Movement: The "Goodness" Gravy Train Rolls On! (September 2021)
4. ESG's Russia Test: Trial by Fire or Crash and Burn? (March 2022)
5. Good Intentions, Perverse Outcomes: The Impact of Impact Investing (October 2023)

The ESG Movement: The "Goodness" Gravy Train Rolls On!

Last year, I wrote a post on ESG and explained why I was skeptical about the claims made by advocates about the benefits it would bring to companies, investors and society. In the year since, I have heard from many on the topic, and while there are some who agreed with me on the internal inconsistencies in its arguments, there were quite a few who disagreed with me. In keeping with my belief that you learn more by engaging with those who disagree with you, than those who do, I have tried my best to see things through the eyes of ESG true believers, and I must confess that the more I look at ESG, the more convinced I become that "there is no there there". More than ever, I believe that ESG is not just a mistake that will cost companies and investors money, while making the world worse off, but that it create more harm than good for society.

ESG: Value and Pricing Implications

Rather than repeat in detail the points I made in last year's post, I will summarize my key conclusions, with addendums and modifications, based upon the feedback (positive and negative) that I have received. 

1. Goodness is difficult to measure, and the task will not get easier!

The starting point for the ESG argument is the premise that we can come up with measures of goodness that can then be targeted by corporate managers and used by investors. To meet this demand, services have popped up around the world, claiming to measure ESG with scores and ratings. As I noted in my last post, there seems to be little consensus across services on how to measure goodness, and the low correlation across service measures of ESG has been well chronicled. The counter from the ESG services and ESG advocates is that these differences reflect growing pains, and just as bond ratings agencies found convergence on measuring default risk, services will also find commonalities. I think that view misses a key difference between default risk and goodness, insofar as default is an observable event and services were able to learn from corporate defaults and fine tune their ratings. Goodness is in the eyes of the beholder, and what you perceive to be a grevious corporate sin may not even register on my list, as a problem. To illustrate how investors can differ on core values, consider the chart below, where investors were asked to assess which issues should rank highest, when considering corporate goodness:

Based on this survey, younger investors want the focus to be on global warming and plastics, whereas older investors seem to focus on data fraud and gun control. If you expand these factors to include other social and religious issues, I would wager that the differences will only widen. As ESG scores and ratings get more traction, researchers are also looking at the factors that allow companies to get high scores and good rankings, and improve them over time. Studies of ESG scores find that they were influenced by company size and location, with larger companies getting higher ESG scores/rankings than smaller companies, and developed market companies getting higher scores and rankings than emerging market companies:

LaBella, Sullivan, Russel and Novikov (2019)

It is entirely possible that big companies are better corporate citizens than smaller ones, but it is also just as plausible that big companies have the resources to play the ESG scoring game, and that more disclosure is a tactic used by these companies that want to bury skeletons in their current or past lives, rather than expose them. In fact, a JP Morgan study of ESG Ratings and disclosures also points to a larger danger from enhanced ESG disclosure requirements, which is that the ESG ratings seems to increase across companies, as disclosure increase. 

Chen et al, JP Morgan

While I am sure that there will be some in the ESG community who will view this as vindication that disclosure is inducing better corporate behavior, the cynic in me sees companies learning to play the ESG game, at least as designed by services, and using the disclosure process to check boxes and up their scores. To me, the parallels to the corporate governance movement from two decades ago are uncanny, where services rushed to estimate corporate governance scores for companies, accountants and rule writers added hundreds of pages of disclosure on corporate governance, and promises were made of a "golden age" for shareholder power. The fact that the corporate governance movement enriched services, consultants and bankers, and left shareholders more powerless than they were before the movement started, holding shares in companies with dual class shares or worse, should act as a warning for ESG disclosure/measurement advocates, but I have a feeling that it will not.

2. Being “good” will add to value some companies, hurt others, and leave the rest unaffected!

If the ESG sales pitch to companies, which is that if you are a "good" company, you will be worth more, is right, why do we need ESG? In fact, Milton Friedman, the bête noire of ESG advocates, would stand vindicated, and companies would do good, because it made them more profitable and valuable, and not because of lectures about morality and goodness. This may be cynical, on my party, but the very fact that ESG advocates keep insisting that being "good" increases value must be because they are themselves unsure why or whether this is true. The framework for tracing out the effect of ESG on value is a simple one, since ESG, if it affects value, has to affect one of four variables: revenue growth (by increasing or decreasing growth), operating profit margins, reinvestment efficiency (the payoff to investing in new capacity)  or risk (through the cost of funding/capital and failure risk). In last year's post, I noted that the empirical evidence that ESG has a positive payoff is weak, at best, and inconclusive, for the most part:

The strongest evidence that is supportive of ESG comes on the risk front, with evidence that it does not pay to be a "bad" company, with some  a higher cost of funding and greater risk of catastrophes, but much of that evidence comes from fossil fuel companies. The weakest evidence in ESG's favor is on profitability and cash flows, since almost every study that purports to find positive correlation between profitability and ESG scores trips up on the causality question, i.e., are "good" companies more profitable or are companies that are more profitable able to take the actions that make them look good? An objective look at the data would lead us to conclude that while one can make a reasonable case that companies should work at "not being bad", there is very little evidence that there is a payoff to  spending more money to be "good".

3. The ESG sales pitch to investors is internally inconsistent and fundamentally incoherent

If the argument that ESG translates into higher value is weak, the argument that incorporating ESG into your investing is going to increase your returns fails a very simple investment test. For any variable, no matter how intuitive and obvious its connection to value might be, to generate "excess" returns, you have to consider whether it has been priced in already. That is why investing in a well managed company or one that has high growth does not translate into excess returns, if the market already is pricing in the management and growth. Applying this principle to ESG investing, the question of whether ESG-based investing pays off or not depends on not only whether you think ESG increases or decreases firm value, but also on whether the market has already priced in the impact.

• If the market has fully priced in the ESG effect on value, positive or negative, investing in 'good' companies or avoiding 'bad' companies will have no effect on excess returns. In fact, if being good makes companies less risky, investors in good companies will earn lower returns than investors in bad companies, before adjusting for risk, and equivalent returns after adjusting for risk.
• If the market is over enthused with ESG and is overpricing how much being "good" will add to a company's profitability or reduce risk, investing in 'good' companies will generate lower risk-adjusted returns than investing in 'bad' companies.
• If the market is underestimating the benefits of being good on growth, margins and risk, investing in 'good' companies will generate higher returns for investors, even after adjusting for risk.

In the latter two cases, the excess returns (negative in the "markets are over estimating" case and positive in the "markets are under estimating") will manifest only when the market corrects its mistakes.   Bringing in market pricing into the discussion is important for two reasons. 

• The first is that it suggests that much of the research on the relationship between ESG and returns yields murky findings. Put simply, there is very little that we learn from these studies, whether they find positive or negative relationships between ESG and investor returns, since that relationship is compatible with a number of competing hypotheses about ESG, value and price. 
• The second is that bringing in market pricing does shed some light on perhaps the only aspect of ESG investing that seems to deliver a payoff for investors, which is investing ahead or during market transitions. In my last post, I pointed to this study that find that activist investors who take stakes in "bad" companies and try to get them to change their ways generate significant excess returns from doing so. Another study contends that investing in companies that improve their ESG can generate excess returns of about 3% a year, but skepticism is in order because it is based upon a proprietary ESG improvement score (REIS), and was generated by an asset management firm that invests based upon that score. 

If you are interested in making market transitions on ESG work in your favor, you also have to be clear about the strengths you will need to get the payoffs, including skills in divining not only what social values are gaining and losing ground and which changes have staying power.

4. Outsourcing your conscience is a salve, not a solution!

    Even if being “good” does not increase value or make investors better off, could it still help, by making the world a better place? After all, what harm can there be in asking and putting pressure on companies to behave well, even if costs them? In the short term, the answer may be no, but in the long term, I believe that this will cost us all (as society). The ESG movement has given each of us an easy way out of having to make choices, by outsourcing these choices to corporate CEOs and investment fund managers, asking them to be “good” for us, while not charging us more for their products and services (as consumers) and delivering above-average returns (as investors). Implicit in the ESG push is the presumption that unless companies that are explicitly committed to ESG, they cannot contribute to society, but that is not true. Consider Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two men who built extraordinarily valuable companies, with goodness a factor in decision making only if it was good for business. Both men have not only made giving pledges, promising to give away most of their wealth to their favorite causes in their lifetimes, and living up to that promise, but they have also made their shareholders wealthy, and many of them give money back to society. As I see it, the difference between this “old” model of business and the proposed “new ESG” version is in who does the giving to society, with corporate CEOs and management taking over that responsibility from shareholders. I am willing to listen to arguments for why this new model is better, but I am certainly not willing to concede, without challenge, that a corporate CEO knows my value system better than I do, as a shareholder, and is better positioned to make judgments on how much to give back to society, and to whom, than I am.

    For a perspective more informed and eloquent than mine, I would strongly recommend this piece by Tariq Fancy, whose stint at BlackRock, as chief investment officer for sustainable investing, put him at the heart of the ESG investing movement. He argues that trusting companies and investment fund managers to make the right judgments for society will fail, because their views (and actions) will be driven by profits, for companies, and investment returns, for fund managers. He also believes that governments and regulators have been derelict in writing rules and laws, allowing companies to step into the void. While I don’t share his faith that government actions are the solution, I share his view that entities whose prime reasons for existence are to generate profits for shareholders (companies) or returns for investors (investment funds) all ill suited to be custodians of public good.

Cui Bono? The ESG Gravy Train (or Circle)!

    If ESG is a flawed concept, perhaps fatally so, and if the flaws are visible for everyone to see, how do we explain the immense push in both corporate and investment settings? I think the answer always lies in asking the question "Cui Bono, or who benefits?". With ESG, the answer seems to be everyone, but those it is purported to help, i.e. corporate stakeholders, investors and society. The picture below captures the groups that have primarily benefited from the ESG boom, and how they feed off each other.

Given how much ESG disclosure advocates, measurement services, investment funds and consultants feed off each other, it is no wonder that they have an incentive to sell you on its unstoppable growth and inevitable success. Given that shareholders in companies and investors in funds are paying for this gravy, you may wonder why corporate CEOs not only go along with this charade, but also actively encourage it, and the answer lies in the power it gives them to bypass shareholders and to evade accountability. After all, these are the same CEOs who, in 2019, put forth the fanciful, but great sounding, argument that it is a company’s responsibility to maximize stakeholder wealth, rather than cater to shareholders, which I argued in a post then that being accountable to everyone effectively meant that CEOs were accountable to no one.  In some cases, flaunting goodness has become a way that founders and CEOs use to cover business model weaknesses and overreach. It is a point that I made in my posts on Theranos, at the time of its implosion in October 2015, and on WeWork, during its IPO debacle in 2019, noting that Elizabeth Holmes and Adam Neumann used their “noble purpose” credentials to cover up fraud and narcissism. 

I should add that, notwithstanding my negative views about ESG, I do not think that ESG consultants, fund managers and analysts are venal, but I do think that they, like everyone else, are driven by self interest. I also believe that many in the ESG ecosystem are driven by good motives, a desire to do good for society and make the world a better place, but that are being used by a few at the top of the ESG pyramid, whose commitment to the cause is skin deep. If you are someone working in the ESG space or a true believer, please do look to the highest profile spokespersons for your cause, mostly corporate CEOs and investment fund titans, and remember the adage about waking up with fleas, if you lie down with dogs.

A Roadmap for being and doing Good

    My skepticism about ESG notwithstanding, I understand its draw, especially on the young. As individuals, each of us has a moral code, sometimes coming from religion, sometimes from family and sometimes from culture, but whatever its source, our actions should be consistent with that code. Since those actions involve what we do at work, and in investing, it stands to reason that there are some investments you will and should not make, because it violates your sense of right and wrong, and other investments that you will make, because they advance your view of goodness. It is for this reason that I would suggest a more nuanced and personalized version of ESG, built around the following principles:

1. Start with a personalized measure of goodness, and don’t overreach: The key with moral codes is that they are personal, and for goodness to be incorporated into your investment and business decisions, you have to bring in your value judgments, rather than leave it to ESG measurement services or to portfolio managers. I would also recommend that you focus on core values, rather than try to find a match on every one, not only because adding too restrictions will constrain you in your choices, perhaps to the point of paralysis, but also because you may find yourself accepting major compromises on your key values in order to meet secondary values. 
2. As a business person, be clear on how being good will affect business models and value: If you own a business, you are absolutely within your rights to bring your personal views on morality into your business decisions, but if you do so, you should work through the effects on growth, margins and risk, and be at peace with the fact that staying true to your values may, and probably will, cost you money. If you are making decisions at a publicly traded company, as an employee, manager or even CEO, you are investing other people’s money and if you choose to make decisions based upon your personalized moral code, you cannot justify these decisions with hand waving and double talk. In fact, you have an obligation to be open about what your conscience will cost your shareholders, a twist on disclosure that ESG advocates will not like.
3. As an investor, understand how much goodness has been priced in: If you are an investor, you don’t have to compromise on your values, as long as you start with the recognition that, at least in the long term, you will have to accept lower returns than you would have earned without that constraint. If you are tempted to have your cake and eat it too, and who isn’t, you may be able to do so by getting ahead of the market in detecting shifts in social mores and pushing for change in the companies you invest in, to change. 
4. As a consumer and citizen, make choices that are consistent with your moral code: If you believe that owning a portfolio of “good” stocks or running a “good” business is all you have to do to fulfill your moral or societal obligations, you are wrong. Your consumption decisions (on which products and services you buy) and your citizenship decisions (on voting and community participation) have as big, if not greater, an effect. Put simply, if your key societal issue is climate change, your refusal to own fossil fuel stocks in your portfolio is of little consequence, if you still drive a gas guzzler, air condition your house to feel like an ice box all summer and take private corporate jets to Davos every year.

On a personal note, I have always found that the people that I've known who do good, spend very little time talking about being good or lecturing other people on goodness. I would extend that perspective to companies and investment funds as well, and I reserve my skepticism for those companies that spend hundreds of pages of their annual filings telling me how much "good" they do.

In conclusion

    The ESG movement’s biggest disservice is the message that it has given those who are torn between morality and money, that they can have it all. Telling companies that being good will always make them more valuable, investors that they can add morality constraints to their investments and earn higher returns at the same time, and young job seekers that they can be paid like bankers, while doing peace corps work, is delusional. In the long term, as the truth emerges, it will breed cynicism in everyone involved, and if you care about the social good, it will do more damage than good. The truth is that, most of the time, being good will cost you and/or inconvenience you (as businesses, investors or employees), and that you choose to be good, in spite of that concern. 

YouTube Video