ADVERTISEABOUT USSUBMIT A STORYSUBSCRIBETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY
Visit our family of Brands

Houston energy tech entrepreneur on if 'ESG' is a dirty word

guest column

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.

From Your Site Articles
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

Property Showcase

Spring-based private equity firm acquires West Texas wind farm

power deal

Spring-based private equity firm Arroyo Investors has teamed up with ONCEnergy, a Portland, Oregon-based developer of clean energy projects, to buy a 60-megawatt wind farm southeast of Amarillo.

Skyline Renewables, which acquired the site, known as the Whirlwind Energy Center, in 2018, was the seller. The purchase price wasn’t disclosed.

Whirlwind Energy Center, located in Floyd County, West Texas, comprises 26 utility-scale wind turbines. The wind farm, built in 2007, supplies power to Austin Energy.

“The acquisition reflects our focus on value-driven investments with strong counterparties, a solid operating track record, and clear relevance to markets with growing capacity needs,” Brandon Wax, a partner at Arroyo, said in a press release. “Partnering with ONCEnergy allows us to leverage deep operational expertise while expanding our investment footprint in the market.”

Arroyo focuses on energy infrastructure investments in the Americas. Its portfolio includes Spring-based Seaside LNG, which produces liquefied natural gas and LNG transportation services.

Last year, Arroyo closed an investment fund with more than $1 billion in total equity commitments.

Since its launch in 2003, Arroyo has “remained committed to investing in high-quality assets, creating value and positioning assets for exit within our expected hold period,” founding partner Chuck Jordan said in 2022.

$524M Texas Hill Country solar project powered by Hyundai kicks off

powering up

Corporate partners—including Hyundai Engineering & Construction, which maintains a Houston office—kicked off a $524 million solar power project in the Texas Hill Country on Jan. 27.

The 350-megawatt, utility-scale Lucy Solar Project is scheduled to go online in mid-2027 and represents one of the largest South Korean-led investments in U.S. renewable energy.

The solar farm, located on nearly 2,900 acres of ranchland in Concho County, will generate 926 gigawatt-hours of solar power each year. That’s enough solar power to supply electricity to roughly 65,000 homes in Texas.

Power to be produced by the hundreds of thousands of the project’s solar panels has already been sold through long-term deals to buyers such as Starbucks, Workday and Plano-based Toyota Motor North America.

The project is Hyundai Engineering & Construction’s largest solar power initiative outside Asia.

“The project is significant because it’s the first time Hyundai E&C has moved beyond its traditional focus on overseas government contracts to solidify its position in the global project financing market,” the company, which is supplying solar modules for the project, says on its website.

Aside from Hyundai Engineering & Construction, a subsidiary of automaker Hyundai, Korean and U.S. partners in the solar project include Korea Midland Power, the Korea Overseas Infrastructure & Urban Development Corp., solar panel manufacturer Topsun, investment firm EIP Asset Management, Primoris Renewable Energy and High Road Energy Marketing.

Primoris Renewable Energy is an Aurora, Colorado-based subsidiary of Dallas-based Primoris Services Corp. Another subsidiary, Primoris Energy Services, is based in Houston.

High Road is based in the Austin suburb of West Lake Hills.

“The Lucy Solar Project shows how international collaboration can deliver local economic development and clean power for Texas communities and businesses,” says a press release from the project’s partners.

Elon Musk vows to put data centers in space and run them on solar power

Outer Space

Elon Musk vowed this week to upend another industry just as he did with cars and rockets — and once again he's taking on long odds.

The world's richest man said he wants to put as many as a million satellites into orbit to form vast, solar-powered data centers in space — a move to allow expanded use of artificial intelligence and chatbots without triggering blackouts and sending utility bills soaring.

To finance that effort, Musk combined SpaceX with his AI business on Monday, February 2, and plans a big initial public offering of the combined company.

“Space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale,” Musk wrote on SpaceX’s website, adding about his solar ambitions, “It’s always sunny in space!”

But scientists and industry experts say even Musk — who outsmarted Detroit to turn Tesla into the world’s most valuable automaker — faces formidable technical, financial and environmental obstacles.

Feeling the heat

Capturing the sun’s energy from space to run chatbots and other AI tools would ease pressure on power grids and cut demand for sprawling computing warehouses that are consuming farms and forests and vast amounts of water to cool.

But space presents its own set of problems.

Data centers generate enormous heat. Space seems to offer a solution because it is cold. But it is also a vacuum, trapping heat inside objects in the same way that a Thermos keeps coffee hot using double walls with no air between them.

“An uncooled computer chip in space would overheat and melt much faster than one on Earth,” said Josep Jornet, a computer and electrical engineering professor at Northeastern University.

One fix is to build giant radiator panels that glow in infrared light to push the heat “out into the dark void,” says Jornet, noting that the technology has worked on a small scale, including on the International Space Station. But for Musk's data centers, he says, it would require an array of “massive, fragile structures that have never been built before.”

Floating debris

Then there is space junk.

A single malfunctioning satellite breaking down or losing orbit could trigger a cascade of collisions, potentially disrupting emergency communications, weather forecasting and other services.

Musk noted in a recent regulatory filing that he has had only one “low-velocity debris generating event" in seven years running Starlink, his satellite communications network. Starlink has operated about 10,000 satellites — but that's a fraction of the million or so he now plans to put in space.

“We could reach a tipping point where the chance of collision is going to be too great," said University at Buffalo's John Crassidis, a former NASA engineer. “And these objects are going fast -- 17,500 miles per hour. There could be very violent collisions."

No repair crews

Even without collisions, satellites fail, chips degrade, parts break.

Special GPU graphics chips used by AI companies, for instance, can become damaged and need to be replaced.

“On Earth, what you would do is send someone down to the data center," said Baiju Bhatt, CEO of Aetherflux, a space-based solar energy company. "You replace the server, you replace the GPU, you’d do some surgery on that thing and you’d slide it back in.”

But no such repair crew exists in orbit, and those GPUs in space could get damaged due to their exposure to high-energy particles from the sun.

Bhatt says one workaround is to overprovision the satellite with extra chips to replace the ones that fail. But that’s an expensive proposition given they are likely to cost tens of thousands of dollars each, and current Starlink satellites only have a lifespan of about five years.

Competition — and leverage

Musk is not alone trying to solve these problems.

A company in Redmond, Washington, called Starcloud, launched a satellite in November carrying a single Nvidia-made AI computer chip to test out how it would fare in space. Google is exploring orbital data centers in a venture it calls Project Suncatcher. And Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin announced plans in January for a constellation of more than 5,000 satellites to start launching late next year, though its focus has been more on communications than AI.

Still, Musk has an edge: He's got rockets.

Starcloud had to use one of his Falcon rockets to put its chip in space last year. Aetherflux plans to send a set of chips it calls a Galactic Brain to space on a SpaceX rocket later this year. And Google may also need to turn to Musk to get its first two planned prototype satellites off the ground by early next year.

Pierre Lionnet, a research director at the trade association Eurospace, says Musk routinely charges rivals far more than he charges himself —- as much as $20,000 per kilo of payload versus $2,000 internally.

He said Musk’s announcements this week signal that he plans to use that advantage to win this new space race.

“When he says we are going to put these data centers in space, it’s a way of telling the others we will keep these low launch costs for myself,” said Lionnet. “It’s a kind of powerplay.”

View All Listings