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

California company launches Tesla Megapack battery project in Houston area

power on

Oakland, California-based Nightpeak Energy announced earlier this month that its 150-megawatt battery storage project in Brazoria County, known as Bocanova Power, is now operating to address Houston’s peak capacity needs.

“This battery storage project will enhance grid reliability in the Alvin area while continuing to support integrating renewable energy,” Cary Perrin, president and CEO of the Northern Brazoria County Chamber of Commerce, said in a news release. “I believe we need energy storage now more than ever for its pivotal role in reducing strain on the grid while meeting fast-growing power demand in Texas and Brazoria County."

The project reached commercial operation in August, according to the release. The project utilizes Tesla's Megapack 2 XL battery storage system, and the facility operates under a long-term power purchase agreement with an undisclosed “investment-grade power purchaser.”

“Bocanova Power demonstrates the speed at which Nightpeak Energy is overcoming complex challenges to energize projects that support America's growing need for affordable, reliable, and secure energy,” Paris Hays, co-founder and CEO/CDO of Nightpeak Energy, added in the news release. “Unprecedented AI data center and manufacturing growth has only accelerated the need for these resources.”

Hays added in the release that the company has plans for more energy infrastructure projects in Texas and in the Western U.S.

Nightpeak Energy develops, owns and operates power plants that support the growing capacity needs of a decarbonized grid. It also owns and operates 240 MW of battery storage and natural gas generation facilities.

The company was founded in 2022 and backed by equity funding of up to $200 million from Dallas-based investment firm Energy Spectrum Capital.

Texas ranks low on most energy-efficient states report

by the numbers

Texas has room to improve when it comes to energy efficiency, recent data from WalletHub shows.

The personal finance website ranked Texas at No. 35 on the latest Most & Least Energy-Efficient States list. Texas improved by one spot on the 2025 report, after coming in at No. 36 last year.

The report measured and ranked the efficiency of auto energy and home energy consumption in the 48 U.S. mainland states based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration.

Texas earned an overall score of 50.60. It was ranked No. 27 for home energy efficiency and No. 41 for auto efficiency. By comparison, No. 1-ranked Vermont earned a score of 85.30, ranking No. 2 for home energy and No. 6 for out energy.

The top five overall states included:

  • No. 1 Vermont
  • No. 2 California
  • No. 3 Washington
  • No. 4 New York
  • No. 5 Massachusetts

South Dakota earned the top rank for home energy efficiency, and Massachusetts earned the top rank for energy efficiency.

“Energy efficiency doesn’t just help save the planet – it also helps save you money by lowering the amount of electricity, gas, oil or other types of energy you need to consume. While there are some steps you can take to become more energy-efficient on your own, living in the right area can give you a big boost," WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo said in the report. "For example, certain states have much better public transportation systems that minimize your need to drive, at least in big cities. Some places also have better-constructed buildings that retain heat better during the winter or stay cooler during the summer.”

According to the report, some progress is being made in increasing energy efficiency across the country. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects 26 percent of electricity generation in 2026 will come from renewables. A number of them are being developed in the Houston area, including recent announcements like the Pleasure Island Power Collective in Port Arthur.

Still, Houston earned an abysmal ranking on WalletHub's greenest cities in the U.S. report earlier this year, coming in at No. 99 out of 100. Read more here.

Port Houston reports emissions progress as cargo volumes climb

greener growth

Port Houston’s initiatives to reduce emissions have shown some positive results, according to new data from the Port of Houston Authority.

Pulling from the Goods Movement Emissions Inventory (GMEI) report, which tracks port-related air emissions, Port Houston cited several improvements compared to the most recent report from 2019.

The port has seen total tonnage and container volumes increase by 16 percent and 28 percent, respectively, since 2019. However, greenhouse gas emissions have increased at a slower rate, growing only by 10 percent during the same time period, according to the data.

Additionally, emissions of nitrogen oxide fell by 7 percent, and emissions of particulate matter fell by 4 percent, despite adding 280 more pieces of cargo handling equipment.

“These results show that our emission-reduction efforts are working, and we are moving in the right direction,” Chairman Ric Campo said in a news release.

The Port Commission also recently approved items related to the $3 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Ports Program (CPP) grant, which it received last year. The items will allow the port to work towards five new sustainability initiatives.

They include:

  1. An inventory of the port’s Scopes 1, 2, and 3 for greenhouse gas emissions
  2. A Port Area Climate Action Plan for the area and surrounding communities
  3. A CPP Truck Route Analysis
  4. Creation of the CPP Trucking Industry Collaborative
  5. Design of a customized website for Port of Houston Partners in Maritime Education, which is a non-profit leading maritime workforce development effort in local schools.

Port Houston aims to be carbon neutral by 2050.

---

This article originally appeared on our sister site, Innovation Map.