The backlash in the USA against ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance), such as legal moves in the State of Texas to restrict financial institutions from using ESG investing criteria, raise questions about the relevance of sustainability data.
‘Woke’ debate distracts from fiduciary duties to investors and society
Yet as set out in the latest edition of The GRI Perspective, polarizing ESG into left-wing ‘woke’ versus conservative ‘anti-woke’ terms is counter-productive. When a balanced viewpoint is taken, it’s clear that ESG considerations are a key aspect of how asset managers fulfil their fiduciary duties towards investors and other stakeholders:
ESG can have significant value enhancing or destructive effects on a business, such as those related to climate or social equality, requiring investors to understand the opportunities and trade-offs involved. Regardless of whether risks stem from non-ESG or ESG related topics, this means they need to be disclosed, understood and managed.
Eelco van der Enden, CEO of GRI said:
“While there can be ideological disagreements over ESG, if we listen to both sides and stick to the facts then common ground can be found. Instead of focussing on what is ‘woke capitalism’ or not, we need a rational discussion on what is good business practice. And the simple truth is that sustainability and effective risk management are completely aligned.
Responsible stewardship means taking care of the fiduciary duty towards stakeholders, society and the environment. In the long-term, you cannot run a successful company in a dysfunctionality society, or a failing planet.
Proportionality in decision making is key. Often it is not ESG that politicizes business, but politicians who politicize ESG.”
GRI
© GRI - Global Reporting Initiative
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article