ESG has certainly come a long way, but has it come too far, actually? Photo via Getty Images

Whose responsibility is it to care for the social good? That’s an important, yet hopelessly complex question, particularly when aimed at sustainability.

When it comes to businesses and other profit-seeking firms, they tend to search for a balance between success today and success overtime. Too much focus in either direction can be deadly.

An apt analogy is a virus: too much reproduction too fast and the host dies, which is why the most successful viruses find the threshold for maximizing reproduction without overly weakening the host.

Payment is about to be due, but from whom?

The ESG movement encapsulates targets from ethical investing related to environmental issues, social values and corporate governance. As it relates to climate, people are working hard to determine how much cumulative effect of human activity is too much for our survival. And there continues to be open questions about how businesses should react to the scientific consensus that climate conditions will continue getting worse, without immediate and severe corrective action. If the consensus is that this is a problem for businesses to fix, whose money do they spend to do it?

Greed was good, once

Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman famously advocated for firms to focus primarily on returning value to shareholders. With respect to social good, he advocated that shareholders use their returns to pursue them; businesses should just chase profit. His 1970 article in the New York Times Magazine is worth a read, particularly his last paragraph, where he observes that corporate dollars spent advancing social responsibility represent the theft of money from investors, customers, or employees. The challenge is, how many negative externalities do we absorb before seeking to redirect corporate profits?

Making impact be part of the analysis

Others have argued that firms have a social responsibility and should pursue, using the term John Elkington coined in 1994, a triple bottom line approach, focusing on profit, people, and planet. Adherents to this approach believe you only get what you measure, and therefore,businesses should measure more than just profit. The challenge is, who is smart enough to balance these accounts?

ESG to the rescue?

The term ESG itself was the result of good intentioned actors in the investment space who wanted to track the efficacy of investing in businesses that scored well for social responsibility. They theorized, and had some support, that these companies outperformed the market. The result was the formation of the Principles for Responsible Investment in 2013, with its six core principles for “incorporating ESG issues into investment practice.”

ESG has certainly come a long way from Milton Friendmen, though it’s challenging to say how the movement is going. From one perspective, it looks like everyone is in trouble. Banks for investing in companies who are not moving fast enough. Energy companies and other producers of consumer products for greenwashing their efforts. Private equity firms for forcing ESG standards that some view as a step-too-far. Financial service companies for assisting in greenwashing. And, of course, the worst offenders are “the woke.” From the other perspective, we are finally starting to see some incentives for companies to address and solve long-ignored problems.

One size fits no one

The question of “Who is responsible for ESG?” reminds me of a presentation I attended in spring 2022, given by a senior executive of a large landfill operator. Before he began his discussion of the environmental impacts of operating a landfill, he noted that his billion dollar company did not really create any trash, it simply collected and received trash from all of us! He was begging the question, “Am I solely responsible for your bad decisions?”

And that’s really the issue with ESG, is it not? Who, for example, is responsible for creating pollution? The energy companies for producing oil and natural gas from underground reserves, or the members of the public who drive cars, buy plastic goods, and flip on the lights? The government for letting those things happen? The answer is sadly both none of us and all of us.

Regulators, mount up

Regulating and investing are often in conflict, but they share one common characteristic: few people have ever done either well. That doesn’t mean we quit trying. There are those among us who can find the signal in the noise, who can stare at a pile of numbers and find the rule that answers the question, or at least correlates well to the desired outcome.

People change expensive behaviors

Charlie Munger famously said, “Show me the incentive, and I’ll show you the outcome.” If I had a magic wand, I would want the power to create global markets for the right to release harmful pollutants / emissions or deposit certain types of waste in landfills. It has worked before, and it will likely be what leads us where we need to go. Until we create marketplaces limiting the release of pollutants and disposal of waste, society will continue to fall prey to complex regulatory solutions that are easy for incumbent industries to strike down. Instead, putting a price on these activities will allow the incumbents to innovate and new companies to compete.

When it comes to ESG, I think we fear two outcomes equally: a world that feels a little out of control and a class of people, or institutions of government, who appear all too confident they have the answers. Maybe we can turn the heat down in the ESG debate by prioritizing what we measure and report and creating marketplaces that incentivize people to solve the most pressing problems.

———

Chris Wood is the co-founder of Houston-based Moonshot Compost.

Although sustainability has invariably moved to the top of the corporate agenda across various sectors, businesses still face challenges in effectively implementing these transformative changes. Photo via Getty Images

Greening the bottom line: Houston expert on the ups and downs of sustainability transformation, reporting

guest column

Amid remarkable fund allocation towards tackling environmental, social, and corporate governance issues, investors deeply concerned about climate change exert substantial leverage on firms and regulators to make reforms.

Furthermore, the Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed new rules requiring all publicly listed corporations to disclose climate change risks in their regular filings with clear reporting obligations, such as information on direct greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1), indirect emissions from purchased electricity or other forms of energy (Scope 2), as well as GHG emissions from upstream and downstream activities in the value chain (Scope 3).

Although sustainability has invariably moved to the top of the corporate agenda across various sectors, businesses still face challenges in effectively implementing these transformative changes. Many companies are still dealing with questions like:

  • What problems and possibilities should they prioritize?
  • Where should they devote time, effort, and money to have the most long term effect via business processes?
  • What principles, policies, and internal standards should be implemented to initiate the process and get good ESG ratings?
  • When do corporate sustainability challenges necessitate collaborations with other businesses to meet commitments and achieve goals?
  • What organizational behavior and change management measures should be incorporated to induce sustainability into the corporate culture?

One-fifth of businesses still need a sustainability plan in place, and fewer than 30 percent feel the effect of that strategy is evident to all employees.

Introducing climate-related practices across businesses and corporations takes time and effort. Since sustainability transformation initiatives span multiple business functions and units, whether they are helping or hurting the bottom line is often a fuzzy picture. It is not easy to quantify near-term profitable impacts directly emanating from sustainable strategies, disincentivizing many businesses from setting ambitious carbon reduction targets.

Businesses often struggle with what they intend to assess and what "good enough" performance looks like for the firm. Furthermore, sustainability performance reporting is infested with the inherent stakes of the legitimacy of data collection, defining the metrics and materiality, accountability to the stakeholders, the dynamism of the business environment, the complexity of reporting standards, and the risk of obsolescence of the tool.

For context, there are approximately 600 sustainability reporting standards, industry efforts, frameworks, and recommendations worldwide. Additionally, the one-directional data collection method used by the carbon market trading systems for scoring analyses often leads to intentional or unintentional greenwashing.

So then, what is the path forward?

An effective strategy would involve adopting a synergistic approach, just like the yin and the yang elements that embody balance and harmony on two distinct yet interconnected levels. The yin aspect, prevailing at the government level, would require a robust standardization of reporting frameworks via policymaking and regulations that can effectively implement suitable transformation engines for businesses. It will entail developing adaptable market mechanisms to successfully guide businesses and consumers to identify, plan, navigate, strategize, and execute greenhouse gas reduction initiatives. It will require answers to foundational questions like:

  • What tools and resources can help businesses improve their financial performance by reducing energy waste and energy costs?
  • How do manufacturers engage their suppliers in low-cost technical reviews to improve process lines, use materials more efficiently, and reduce waste?
  • How can waste management and recycling help a business by saving money, energy, and natural resources?

There is a dire need to standardize and consolidate the industry benchmarks and reporting frameworks against which businesses can assess their performance for climate action and potentially improve their bottom line by investing in appropriate carbon mitigation activities. This will create a fundamental shift in the mindset of corporates and raise the level of conversation from "Should we implement sustainable business frameworks?" to "How we could best implement sustainable frameworks for better ROI and an impactful bottom line?"

On the other hand, the yang element operates at the business or corporation level. Successful execution of sustainability strategies entails interweaving the sustainability thread into the business core across strategies and processes, operations and personnel, and products and services.

What is the business case for sustainability efforts? From operational cost savings to expansion in new markets, from enhanced brand equity to investor interest and share expansion, companies that incorporate robust and scalable sustainable practices have opportunities to unlock new sources of value capture and new markets that can deliver immediate financial rewards. Such measures will demonstrate the overall sustainability transformation's power and potentially provide money or cost savings to fund other components.

One way to do it is by introducing circular business models to reshape the whole product usage cycle: re-engineering product designs with more sustainable materials, redesigning the manufacturing lifecycle, recycling products, packaging, and waste, and reducing emissions in transportation, water, and energy consumption activities. By leveraging technology and AI in the extended system of interactions within and outside the business, companies can monitor, predict, and reduce the carbon emissions in their supply chains and yield immediate financial results.

Designing, implementing, and managing the foundational governance of sustainable business practices, strategies, structure, and tactics will require robust governance of sustainability efforts in all key business areas, including marketing, sales, product development, and finance. Additionally, organizational values, leadership initiative from the CEO and board level to the employees, and stakeholder interest are necessary to drive value for business policy. Involving employees in decision-making will help induce better commitment and accountability to implementing economic, social, environmental, and technologically sustainable interventions and initiatives.

Finally, businesses need to understand that they could truly develop long-term business success and shareholder value when they stop viewing sustainability from a compliance or ESG reporting lens. Long-term business success cannot be achieved solely by maximizing short-term profits but through market-oriented yet responsible behavior that automatically drives enhanced business bottom lines. This demands a collaborative partnership between policymakers, the private sector, nonprofit organizations, academia, and civic society to usher in economic growth, competitiveness, and consumer interest. This partnership is essential for environmental protection and social responsibility to ensure a sustainable future.

———

Ruchi Gupta is a certified mentor and vice chair at SCORE Houston.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

ExxonMobil postpones $10B plastics manufacturing plant

plastics project postponed

Spring-based ExxonMobil is postponing development of a $10 billion plastics manufacturing plant along the Gulf Coast. Construction on the plant, to be located near Port Lavaca, was supposed to begin next year.

“Based on current market conditions, we are going to slow the pace of our development for the Coastal Plain Venture,” ExxonMobil confirmed in an emailed statement. “We’re confident in our growth strategy, and we remain interested in a potential project along the U.S. Gulf Coast and in other regions around the world. We’re maintaining good relationships with community leaders and contractors, so we are ready to reevaluate the project’s status when market conditions improve.”

According to Independent Commodity Intelligence Services, the Coastal Plain project was preliminary, and ExxonMobil had not yet announced its decision about building a plant for polyethylene production. Polyethylene, the world’s most common plastic, is used in a variety of products, such as bags, bottles, food containers, automotive components, medical tubes, IV bags, children’s toys and cutting boards.

The Coastal Plain postponement follows a judge’s ruling in August that invalidated a decision by Calhoun County ISD board members to negotiate tax breaks with ExxonMobil, according to Inside Climate News. The judge made the ruling in a case filed by environmental activist Diane Wilson and her nonprofit group, San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper.

Wilson told Inside Climate News that she thought public opposition played a part in ExxonMobil postponing the Coastal Plain project.

“I think if everybody had just rolled over for them, if they got exactly what they wanted (tax breaks) and there wasn’t a big fight, there would be no delay,” Wilson said.

KBR shifts sustainability focus with planned spinoff

seeing green

Houston-based KBR, a provider of technology and engineering services for government and private-sector customers, is pursuing a tax-free spinoff of its Mission Technology Solutions business as a public company. Following the spinoff, KBR would remain a public company.

The new company, nicknamed SpinCo, would focus on technology and engineering services for the space and national security sectors. The scaled-down KBR, nicknamed RemainCo, would concentrate solely on sustainability technology and services designed to reduce carbon emissions and support energy transition efforts.

According to the company, RemainCo, or New KBR, will is positioned to serve the ammonia and syngas, chemical and petrochemicals, clean refining, and circular economy markets.

Stuart Bradie, chairman, president and CEO of KBR, said that from July 2024 to July 2025, the Mission Technology Solutions segment generated revenue of $5.8 billion. During the same period, the Sustainability Technology Solutions segment posted revenue of $3.7 billion.

KBR has forecast fiscal year 2025 revenue of $8.1 billion, up from $7.7 billion during the previous fiscal year. The company’s 2026 fiscal year starts in January.

In a news release, KBR said SpinCo and the restructured KBR would “deliver long-term profitable growth and value for customers, associates, and shareholders.”

“Our team has successfully built two leading businesses with the necessary scale and strong financial profile to enable us to take this next exciting step,” Bradie told Wall Street analysts.

Over the past decade, Bradie said, KBR has evolved into “a leading provider of differentiated, innovative, up-market science, technology, and engineering solutions with global scale, global reach, and global impact.” The spinoff would create two public companies that’ll “unlock the next phase of value creation,” he added.

Bradie will be chairman, president, and CEO of the newly configured KBR, while Mark Sopp, KBR’s executive vice president and chief financial officer, will transition to oversight of the Mission Technology Solutions spinoff. Effective Jan. 5, Shad Evans will succeed Sopp as CFO of KBR. He currently is KBR’s senior vice president of financial operations.

Bradie said an executive search firm has been hired to identify candidates for the CEO and CFO roles at SpinCo.

The spinoff is expected to be completed in mid- to late 2026.

Houston energy startups, leaders named finalists for 2025 Innovation Awards

Meet the Innovators

InnovationMap.com, EnergyCaptialHTX's sister website, has revealed the finalists for the 2025 Houston Innovation Awards, and the local energy sector — from startups to leaders and accelerators — is well-represented throughout the awards.

Taking place on November 13 at Greentown Labs, the fifth annual Houston Innovation Awards will honor the best of Houston's innovation ecosystem, including startups, entrepreneurs, mentors, and more.

This year's finalists were determined by our esteemed panel of judges, comprised of past award winners and InnovationMap editorial leadership.

The panel reviewed nominee applications across 10 prestigious categories to determine the finalists. They will select the winner for each category, except for Startup of the Year, which will be chosen by the public via online voting launching later this month.

The Trailblazer Award recipient will be announced in the coming weeks, and the rest of this year's winners will be unveiled live at the annual awards ceremony and event on November 13 at Greentown Labs.

Tickets are on sale now — including a limited number of corporate 10-packs — secure yours today.

Without further ado, here are the 2025 Houston Innovation Awards finalists:

Minority-founded Business

Honoring an innovative startup founded or co-founded by BIPOC or LGBTQ+ representation:

  • Capwell Services
  • Deep Anchor Solutions
  • Mars Materials
  • Torres Orbital Mining (TOM)
  • Wellysis USA

Female-founded Business

Honoring an innovative startup founded or co-founded by a woman:

  • Anning Corporation
  • Bairitone Health
  • Brain Haven
  • FlowCare
  • March Biosciences
  • TrialClinIQ

Energy Transition Business

Honoring an innovative startup providing a solution within renewables, climatetech, clean energy, alternative materials, circular economy and beyond:

  • Anning Corporation
  • Capwell Services
  • Deep Anchor Solutions
  • Eclipse Energy
  • Loop Bioproducts
  • Mars Materials
  • Solidec

Health Tech Business

Honoring an innovative startup within the health and medical technology sectors:

  • Bairitone Health
  • Corveus Medical
  • FibroBiologics
  • Koda Health
  • NanoEar
  • Wellysis USA

Deep Tech Business

Honoring an innovative startup providing technology solutions based on substantial scientific or engineering challenges, including those in the AI, robotics and space sectors:

  • ARIX Technologies
  • Little Place Labs
  • Newfound Materials
  • Paladin Drones
  • Persona AI
  • Tempest Droneworx

Startup of the Year (People's Choice)

Honoring a startup celebrating a recent milestone or success. The winner will be selected by the community via an online voting experience:

  • Eclipse Energy
  • FlowCare
  • MyoStep
  • Persona AI
  • Rheom Materials
  • Solidec

Scaleup of the Year

Honoring an innovative later-stage startup that's recently reached a significant milestone in company growth:

  • Coya Therapeutics
  • Fervo Energy
  • Koda Health
  • Mati Carbon
  • Molecule
  • Utility Global

Incubator/Accelerator of the Year

Honoring a local incubator or accelerator that is championing and fueling the growth of Houston startups:

  • Activate
  • Energy Tech Nexus
  • Greentown Labs
  • Healthtech Accelerator (TMCi)
  • Impact Hub Houston

Mentor of the Year

Honoring an individual who dedicates their time and expertise to guide and support budding entrepreneurs. Presented by Houston Community College:

  • Anil Shetty, Inform AI
  • Jason Ethier, EnergyTech Nexus
  • Jeremy Pitts, Activate
  • Joe Alapat, Liongard
  • Neal Dikeman, Energy Transition Ventures
  • Nisha Desai, Intention

Trailblazer Recipient

  • To be announced
---------

The Houston Innovation Awards program is sponsored by Houston Community College, Houston Powder Coaters, FLIGHT by Yuengling, and more to be announced soon. For sponsorship opportunities, please contact sales@innovationmap.com.