This article from Harvard Business Review by Robert G. Eccles is worth reading because it offers a balanced and insightful perspective on the heated debate surrounding ESG, especially in the United States.
The article addresses, among others, the issue of greenhushing—when companies deliberately downplay or avoid publicizing their ESG efforts—by recognizing that the intense political debates surrounding ESG have made some businesses hesitant to discuss their sustainability initiatives.
The most Important Takeaways from this article are :
1. ESG criticism from both political sides:
– Liberals critics: Argue that ESG efforts are insufficient in addressing major societal challenges like climate change.
– Conservatives critics: Believe ESG promotes a liberal agenda that interferes with free markets and shareholder value.
– This polarization has led to practices like “greenhushing,” where companies downplay or avoid discussing their ESG initiatives publicly.
2. Need for clarity in corporate purpose:
– Companies should clearly define their purpose with precision, focusing on how they create shareholder value.
– They must identify material ESG issues that directly affect financial performance.
– Recognize the limits of what they can and cannot do in addressing societal problems without compromising shareholder interests.
3. Understanding single vs. double materiality:
– Single materiality (financial materiality): Focuses on ESG factors that have a direct impact on a company’s financial performance and shareholder value.
– Double materiality: Includes both the financial impact and the company’s broader effects on society and the environment (positive and negative externalities).
– The debate over which approach to adopt remains unresolved, with European entities favoring double materiality and many U.S. conservatives supporting single materiality.
4. Transparency in sustainability reporting:
– Companies should adopt candid and standardized reporting practices to avoid “greenwashing” (overstating ESG efforts) and “greenhushing.”
– Transparent reporting helps stakeholders understand both the positive contributions and the negative externalities of a company’s operations.
5. Constructive stakeholder engagement:
– Companies should engage proactively with shareholders, NGOs, politicians, and industry associations on ESG issues.
– By being transparent about their ESG strategies and limitations, companies can shape their narratives and avoid being reactive.
– Constructive dialogue can help address criticisms and align expectations between the company and its stakeholders.
6. Navigating the political landscape:
– ESG has become entangled in cultural and political wars, but companies should focus on the practical aspects of responsible business practices.
– Leaders should separate political rhetoric from actionable strategies that contribute to both shareholder value and societal well-being.
– Encouraging effective government regulations can help address negative externalities that companies cannot manage alone.
7. Future of ESG:
– The term “ESG” may eventually fade, but the core principles of responsible business practices will remain crucial.
– Companies should strive to balance shareholder interests with societal impact, moving beyond the polarized debates.
– A clear framework for corporate responsibility can help businesses contribute positively to society while ensuring long-term profitability.
waelmo.com 