WHEB Commentary

Is ESG a waste of time?


Like many others, the COVID-19 lock-downs were an opportunity to develop new hobbies. One of my new hobbies was to join a film club. A few months ago, we watched ‘The Graduate’ starring a young Dustin Hoffman as the eponymous graduate ‘Benjamin’. A key moment in the film involves a friend of Benjamin’s parents advising him to get into plastics because “there’s going to be a great future in plastics.” 

And of course, in the 1960s, when the film was set, getting into plastics would have been great advice. The success of that industry has brought plenty of benefits, but too much plastic has also of course created lots of problems that we are living with now.

If you are talking to a graduate today, I think the advice might be to get into sustainability or even into ‘ESG’.[i]  Certainly, that seems to be the ambition of a lot of young analysts today.  But might we be storing up future trouble by embracing ESG too unquestioningly?

Like selling wheatgrass to a cancer patient

Tariq Fancy certainly thinks so. Mr Fancy is the ex-Chief Sustainable Investment Officer at BlackRock. He doesn’t just think that ESG is ineffective as other critiques have asserted.[ii] In a 40-page essay he claims that ESG is actively dangerous.[iii] After leaving BlackRock in 2019, he concluded that ‘our work in sustainable investing was like selling wheatgrass to a cancer patient’. Not only ineffective, but actively damaging because it delays the patient from receiving effective therapies.

Juxtaposed with this view is the argument set out in Sir Ronald Cohen’s book ‘Impact – Reshaping capitalism to drive real change’.[iv] This sets out a manifesto for a new way of thinking about finance, putting positive impact at its heart. The book argues that finance can have an enormously positive impact in addressing the critical challenges facing the world today. So who is right?

ESG focuses on reducing investment risk

The first thing to say of course is that ESG and impact investing are not the same.  Fancy characterizes ESG as being like ‘good sportsmanship’. For Blackrock perhaps ESG is about trying to get companies to be better corporate citizens. But for most of the market, ESG investing is mainly about managing risk. Recognising that the world is changing, investors analyse exposure to material ESG issues, and assess how well-equipped companies are to mitigate these risks.

ESG investing processes may indeed help to avoid risk (we think they can) but this is not the same as reducing impact in the real world. Divesting a portfolio of carbon stocks is a good way to decarbonize a portfolio, but this divestment does little to decarbonize the economy.[v]  Fancy is wrong to characterize ESG investing as nothing more than making ‘vague promises to be responsible’. But he is right to call out asset managers who claim ESG investing alone can save the world.

Impact investing focuses on creating positive impact

Impact investing in contrast is explicitly about creating positive impact in the real world. It puts impact at the heart of the investment case and seeks to measure the positive impact in the real world.  ESG is concerned about real world impacts on companies. Impact investing is focused on a company’s impact on the real world.

Is there a business case for ESG?

Fancy also takes issue with claims that there is a financial case for addressing ESG issues (what he calls ‘the overlap between purpose and profit’). Improvements in ‘operational’ ESG – reducing energy use, hazardous waste generation, health and safety incidents – can deliver improvements in financial performance.[vi] However, we’d agree that it is an altogether greater challenge to claim a business case when the core product is under-attack. We have seen oil and gas companies improve their health and safety track record over recent decades.[vii] It has been much more difficult to get them to give up on their core product.

Impact investors, in contrast, invest in companies that sell products and services that help to reduce carbon emissions and create positive impacts. These are businesses that are enabling a transition to a zero carbon and more sustainable economy. And by enabling this transition, they also benefit from it because they sell more of their products and services. In these cases, revenue growth goes hand-in-hand with more positive impact.

How exactly companies and their investors create positive impact is beyond the scope of this blog but is something that we will be addressing in greater depth in a forthcoming white paper.[viii]

Regulatory change

Like anyone confronted with the reality of climate change, Fancy believes that society needs to respond systemically and change the entire economy’s relationship with carbon. We wholeheartedly agree. In fact, 456 investors representing $41 trillion in assets also agree. This group, which included WHEB, signed a ‘Global Investor Statement to Governments on the Climate Crisis’ calling for urgent regulatory action to tackle climate change.[ix]

For these investors, ESG is not intended to delay regulatory change. Far from it. They are advocating for regulatory change and believe it necessary and urgent. This advocacy isn’t an alternative to ESG investing, but a complement to it.

BlackRock was not a signatory to this letter. In fact, Larry Fink asserted earlier this year that climate change should be addressed through self-regulation alone.[x]  Some investors may be using ESG as a smokescreen aimed at delaying regulation. Tariq Fancy’s critique should be aimed directly at them.

 

[i] ‘ESG’ stands for environmental, social and governance and is short-hand for an approach to investing that takes account of these issues.

[ii] See for example Robert Armstrong, ‘The fallacy of ESG investing’, 23 October 2020, The Financial Times (https://www.ft.com/content/9e3e1d8b-bf9f-4d8c-baee-0b25c3113319)

[iii] Tariq Fancy, ‘The Secret Diary of a ‘Sustainable Investor’’, August 2021 (https://medium.com/@sosofancy/the-secret-diary-of-a-sustainable-investor-part-1-70b6987fa139 )

[iv] Sir Ronald Cohen, ‘Impact: Reshaping Capitalism to Drive Real Change’, 2020, Ebury Press

[v] We argue that divestment can have important socio-political ramifications but recognise that divestment itself will have little immediate effect on carbon emissions. For more on this point see Maximillian Horster, ‘Failed Theories of Change: Misperceptions About ESG Investment and Investment Efforts to Combat Climate Change’, in K. Wendt (ed.) Theories of Change, 2021, Sustainable Finance

[vi] https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/five-ways-that-esg-creates-value

[vii] https://www.api.org/-/media/Files/Publications/API-Workers-Safety-Report-2019.pdf

[viii] We also briefly addressed these points in our 2020 Impact report available at https://impact.whebgroup.com/media/2021/06/WHEB-Impact-Report-2020.pdf

[ix] https://theinvestoragenda.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/IN-CONFIDENCE_EMBARGOED_2021-Global-Investor-Statement-to-Governments-on-the-Climate-Crisis-1.pdf

[x] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og86EEE9tGk

Recent posts

  • We’ve been warned – climate crisis and weak links in the supply chain
  • Is ESG a waste of time?
  • Code Red from the IPCC
  • Extreme weather – a wake-up call on climate mitigation and adaptation
  • The price of civilisation
  • Delivering carbon reductions – moving beyond the targets
  • Is Amazon really a sustainable investment?
  • What is the best way to tackle plastic waste?
  • Deliveroo – bad timing, bad ESG, or just a bad idea?
  • Kingspan and the Grenfell tower fire
  • Archive

  • October 2021 (1)
  • September 2021 (1)
  • August 2021 (2)
  • July 2021 (3)
  • June 2021 (1)
  • May 2021 (1)
  • April 2021 (3)
  • March 2021 (1)
  • February 2021 (1)
  • January 2021 (3)
  • December 2020 (1)
  • November 2020 (2)
  • October 2020 (3)
  • September 2020 (1)
  • August 2020 (2)
  • July 2020 (3)
  • June 2020 (2)
  • May 2020 (1)
  • April 2020 (3)
  • March 2020 (1)
  • February 2020 (2)
  • January 2020 (1)
  • December 2019 (1)
  • November 2019 (2)
  • October 2019 (3)
  • September 2019 (1)
  • August 2019 (2)
  • July 2019 (3)
  • June 2019 (2)
  • May 2019 (3)
  • April 2019 (1)
  • March 2019 (1)
  • February 2019 (2)
  • January 2019 (3)
  • December 2018 (1)
  • November 2018 (2)
  • October 2018 (4)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • August 2018 (4)
  • July 2018 (1)
  • June 2018 (1)
  • May 2018 (1)
  • April 2018 (2)
  • March 2018 (2)
  • February 2018 (1)
  • January 2018 (1)
  • December 2017 (3)
  • November 2017 (1)
  • July 2017 (3)
  • June 2017 (1)
  • May 2017 (1)
  • April 2017 (1)
  • February 2017 (2)
  • November 2016 (1)
  • August 2016 (1)
  • July 2016 (1)
  • June 2016 (1)
  • May 2016 (1)
  • April 2016 (2)
  • February 2016 (1)
  • December 2015 (1)
  • November 2015 (3)
  • October 2015 (1)
  • September 2015 (1)
  • July 2015 (2)
  • April 2015 (2)
  • February 2015 (2)
  • December 2014 (2)
  • November 2014 (3)
  • October 2014 (4)
  • August 2014 (1)
  • July 2014 (3)
  • June 2014 (1)
  • April 2014 (2)
  • March 2014 (2)
  • February 2014 (3)
  • January 2014 (4)
  • December 2013 (4)
  • October 2013 (5)
  • September 2013 (3)
  • July 2013 (4)
  • June 2013 (2)
  • May 2013 (4)
  • April 2013 (2)
  • March 2013 (4)
  • February 2013 (6)
  • January 2013 (2)
  • December 2012 (3)
  • November 2012 (1)
  • October 2012 (4)
  • September 2012 (2)
  • August 2012 (1)
  • July 2012 (3)
  • June 2012 (3)
  • May 2012 (6)
  • April 2012 (4)
  • March 2012 (5)