Abstract
AbstractEnvironmental, social and governance (ESG) investing suffers from a well‐documented problem of defining exactly what it is. Anecdotal evidence indicates that overinclusion is the more serious immediate problem, as assets stated to be managed in accordance with ESG criteria have undergone broad expansion. Yet, persistent criticism and frustration with the uncertainty of the meaning and aims of ESG present myriad risks. An abrupt outflow of capital, together with attendant environmental impacts, is one potential consequence if the music stops. We offer a corrective supported by empirical research on the energy transition. Our suggestion is that the environmental pillar, the “E” in ESG, is uniquely quantifiable, yet theoretically underdeveloped in important respects. This circumstance corresponds with emissions ratings regimes that are both loose and misleadingly precise. We suggest a five‐point rubric for rethinking the “E” pillar in view of changing socio‐technical systems that result in the secondary effects of emissions.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call