Regardless of being touted as a accountable and complex framework for enterprise and funding, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards lack logical cohesion and inner consistency. Conceptually, no purpose exists for why the basic concepts throughout the ESG label ought to correlate with each other. As an illustration, social standards concerning variety, fairness, and inclusion usually undercut environmental standards and vice versa. And “good” environmental or social scores can be utilized to paper over vital governance points. This makes the ESG label a complicated idea and an incoherent umbrella label beneath which all kinds of social, political, financial, and environmental curiosity teams compete to advance their agendas utilizing the label of “accountable” or “sustainable” funding.
A part of the incoherence of ESG stems from mixing sound enterprise and funding practices with ideological priorities. These new ideological priorities have little to do with profitable enterprise efficiency or excessive monetary returns. Nor are they backed by sound analysis or substantial proof. As an alternative, they’re a set of “just-so” tales glommed onto current enterprise practices and methods. Even those that embrace ESG ought to acknowledge the worth of disaggregating it into its three totally different parts. Evaluating disaggregated environmental, social, and governance classes independently of one another will assist firms and buyers allocate capital extra effectively and successfully whereas encouraging extra clear engagement of societal issues.