The rise of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors has significantly influenced business and financial markets, with stakeholders increasingly valuing these business aspects.
There has, however, been pushback against this trend, perhaps exemplified most recently by the lawsuit from ten Republican states aimed at blocking the implementation of the recent US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruling.
Critics of the ESG movement highlight several key concerns. Firstly, there’s a lack of standardization in metrics and criteria for evaluating ESG performance, leading to difficulties in accurate comparison across companies. Secondly, inconsistent data quality raises questions around the credibility and reliability of ESG ratings and assessments. These issues can lead to a lack of transparency, and may ultimately result in ‘greenwashing’.
There’s also debate around whether prioritizing ESG factors in investment decisions compromises financial returns and breaches fiduciary duty to shareholders, and whether incorporating non-financial metrics into investment decisions limits investment opportunities.
While it’s definitely a stretch to say that sentiment on ESG is souring, there has nonetheless been a shift in the stance of some of the biggest names in finance. Blackrock, one of the world’s largest and most influential investment management corporations, has historically advocated for sustainable investing practices and addressing ESG issues across its portfolio.
Now, however, the company is scrapping ESG investing and instead pivoting to focus solely on the environmental component, rebranding it as “transition investing.”
Mark Wiedman, Senior Managing Director at Blackrock, is quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that, “Transition investing is specific and concrete. Clients know what we’re talking about. ESG as a category is a vague grab bag for many clients.”
So, what exactly is transition investing, and can we expect to see the term cropping up increasingly regularly as firms potentially follow Blackrock’s lead?
Asset manager Ninety One provides an introduction to transition investing on its website, stating “The term ‘transition investing’ describes allocations that finance progress towards net zero. It covers investments in industries and infrastructure that are helping the energy transition, as well as targeting high-emitting sectors that require substantial financing to implement their climate strategies.”
Or, as RBC Wealth Management puts it, “transition investing provides financing to support progress towards net zero. It covers investments in high-emitting and hard-to-abate sectors that require substantial financing to implement their climate strategies and lower emissions.”
While any future-related prediction is obviously prone to error, transition investing certainly has the potential to gain widespread popularity in the coming years, propelled by the global movement towards sustainability and carbon-neutrality.
It’s no longshot to foresee a substantial expansion of the market for these types of investments, fueled by an emphasis on decarbonization, growing interest in sustainable investing, and the urgent need to fund initiatives aimed at achieving net-zero emissions.
Will this in turn herald a decline for the term ‘ESG’ as firms increasingly abandon the term for being too politicized and vague, as well as for its other weaknesses around standardization and transparency?
That’s hard to call. Like most things in life, the concept of ESG and its meaning are subject to change and evolution alongside its environmental influences. Just as the circumstances in which the term was coined and developed have changed, so the term itself may need to adapt to suit the purposes of those who use it. Over time, its usage may well diminish as new terms better suited to their circumstances arise.
This shouldn’t be cause for concern though. Ultimately, what’s crucial is not the label itself, but the tangible actions and outcomes that drive positive environmental, social, and governance practices within organizations. So long as the underlying commitment to sustainability remains steadfast, the terminology used to describe it should be secondary.
Having said that, increasing investor demand, growing regulatory and policy support, rising corporate commitments, and positive correlations between strong company ESG performance and financial performance over the long term are all strong drivers for implementing robust ESG management and reporting processes, both now and in the future.
There is still serious momentum (and money) behind ESG, and it would be more surprising to see it fade away over the next few years than for it to continue gaining traction.
Ultimately, terms like ‘ESG’ and ‘transition investing’ may come and go, but the principles which inspired them will hopefully remain steadfast – for the sake of the planet, and for ourselves.
Boost your ESG ratings and strengthen your reputation for sustainability.
