The upheaval of life as we know it as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic has escalated calls for the application of environmental, social & governance (ESG) principles across all industries, to build a better world. This has been particularly evident in financial markets, which have seen the wreaking of almost unprecedented havoc across global markets, with the interruption of supply chains and the drying up of demand.
Globally, sustainability themed funds saw record inflows in the first quarter, while the rest of the markets were leaking hundreds of billions in outflows. It seems the Covid-19 crisis has reinforced the belief among investors that ESG will have a material effect on their shareholdings over the longer term.
However, there exists increasing debate around the role of ESG investing and stakeholder capitalism in driving optimal returns for shareholders. Just last week we saw two arguments in this publication questioning its value when it comes to driving market returns and real, fundamental change in our world.
One article in particular, by the Financial Times’s US financial editor, Robert Armstrong, contended that ESG investing rests on weak conceptual foundations and should be viewed suspiciously by investors seeking adequate returns or citizens advocating change for a better world (“The dubious appeal of ESG investing is for dupes only”, August 23).
This kind of thinking is deeply flawed in that it fails to recognise the economy as a subset of society, which in turn is acutely reliant on the safe functioning of the global biophysical system. Sustainability as a field sits at the intersect of complex system science and normative ethics. The systems science side of it focuses on the interplay between the biophysical, social and economic aspects of our existence. The normative ethics aspect draws our attention to issues such as human rights, earth jurisprudence, articles of religious faith, and cultural norms and practices.
In failing to acknowledge this critical systems interplay, Armstrong displays the blind spot of shareholder capitalism, which is that it exacts a heavy price on society and the environment, and often these externalities go unpriced in the markets. By taking a singular system view on the economy and failing to recognise its interconnectivity, he completely overlooks what society and science are telling the world. Similarly, he takes a narrow view of capitalism and fails to see it as an evolving set of concepts that have been shaped through time.
Armstrong’s point that stakeholder capitalism is founded on weak conceptual ideas is just plain incorrect. This is a field that has grown in its depth of research and understanding over the past 20 years. Prof Colin Mayer of Oxford university, an advocate of stakeholder capitalism, frames it as: “The purpose of business is not to produce profits. The purpose of business is to produce profitable solutions to the problems of people and the planet.” In the same vein, the research of Michael Porter from Harvard provides a compelling conceptual framework for stakeholder capitalism and, importantly, highlights the strategic advantage of pursing a business strategy centred on these concepts.
The idea that corporate leaders will be forced to choose between delivering to stakeholders at the cost of shareholders is a conundrum that is not unique to “stakeholder capitalism”. Balancing competing priorities is also a challenge for shareholder capitalism. Think of the situation where a CEO has to weigh short-term margins for shareholders by reducing product quality or customer service levels. What matters in these situations is the quality of the leadership, and the time horizon used for decision-making. It is certainly not uncommon for shareholders to accept short-term pain for longer-term gains.
While we may not know what comes next after the Covid-19 fallout has subsided, what we do know is that the world will be significantly altered going forward. Our sense of inter-connectivity will be enhanced, and we will have learnt that it is not just returns that matter. In part, this explains the growing call for post-Covid-19 fiscal stimulus — unprecedented in global history — to be directed to low-carbon, resource-efficient and socially inclusive growth. This tailwind supports sustainable and ESG-focused investing as a viable and technically sound approach to delivering competitive financial returns. This approach has the potential to shift the global economy to a path that is low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive, but this is as much to do with shareholder value as it is to do with the greater good.
This specific junction where we find ourselves in the midst of this crisis is the perfect moment for all actors in the financial services sector to really realign their understanding of responsible investment and ESG issues. It is critical that decisionmakers should be clear on how ESG issues affect long-term risk and returns, and additionally how the growing trend towards ESG investing impacts the ability to attract, retain and ultimately grow capital.
Head of responsible investment
Old Mutual Investment Group
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an e-mail with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Would you like to comment on this article or view other readers' comments?
Register (it’s quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.