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

Houston researchers land $10M grant to study how climate change drives disease threats

climate health research

Researchers from Rice University, Baylor College of Medicine and the University of Texas School of Public Health have received a $10 million grant to support research and public education on how climate change is linked to public health.

The funding comes from North Carolina-based Burroughs Wellcome Fund and is known as the organization’s Climate + Health Excellence (CHEX) award. It will be used over the next five years to launch the new FORECAST initiative, led by Rice professors and co-investigators Sylvia Dee and Joseph Campan.

FORECAST will “study how a rapidly changing environment and weather drive the emergence and expansion of deadly pathogens in human populations,” according to a release from Rice.

“This grant supports novel research linking climate change projections to health care solutions while simultaneously ensuring the next generation of scientists, leaders and policymakers have the training to assess and respond to the climate change risks that we already know are increasing every year,” Dee said in the release.

The funding will go toward a variety of new initiatives and centers.

At Rice, the funding will help launch the new Center for Climate and Environmental Health, as well as cross-campus multidisciplinary collaborations, seed grants, postdoctoral and graduate positions, and more, according to the university.

The grant will also support the statewide “Middle to Medical” climate-health educational program for youth. The program will focus on teaching how pathogens spread and how climate change plays a role in the process.

“FORECAST will prepare youth across Texas to make informed health decisions that protect themselves and their families and communities from extreme weather and disease-related risks,” Nancy Moreno, a professor of education, innovation and technology at Baylor College of Medicine and co-investigator on this grant, added in the release.

Anthony Maresso, professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, will share expertise in viral pathogen sewage detection that was developed during the COVID-19 pandemic; while Eric Boerwinkle, dean of the UT School of Public Health, will share insights from the Texas Wastewater Environmental Biomonitoring Network, which tracks disease-causing viruses and bacteria by testing wastewater weekly at Texas sites.

“Hotter days, bigger storms, new disease threats — Texas’s future demands preparation,” Boerwinkle added in the release. “With support from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the FORECAST team is helping Texas detect threats earlier and respond faster, saving lives and strengthening our economy.”

EV surge could shutter 40 refineries by 2040, Wood Mackenzie report warns

ev outlook

The rise of electric vehicles could spell trouble for Houston’s oil and gas sector, a new report suggests. But the oil and gas industry stands to benefit from potential sluggishness in U.S. adoption of EVs.

If worldwide EV adoption rises as expected, global oil demand could fall by five million barrels per day by 2040, accelerating the closure of about 40 oil refineries, says the report, published by energy research and consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. The firm’s North American hub is in Houston.

Those closures might spell trouble for refinery operators with a sizable Houston-area presence, including BP, ExxonMobil, Marathon, Saudi Aramco, and Valero. In 2025, the five companies collectively earned roughly $33 billion from downstream operations, including refineries. One caveat: Each company assigns a different definition to “downstream.”

Refineries in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, including the U.S. but excluding Middle Eastern heavyweights, “are most at risk due to their high energy costs and carbon prices,” the Wood Mackenzie report says.

On the flip side, an abundant U.S. oil supply means American drivers have less of an incentive to switch from traditional cars to electric vehicles, despite stubbornly high fuel prices, according to the report.

Wood Mackenzie predicts EVs will account for 20 percent of the U.S. personal and commercial vehicle fleet in 2040, up from three percent in 2025. That compares with a global forecast of 25 percent in 2040, up from 4 percent last year.

Another U.S. roadblock to EV adoption cited in the report: the country’s relative lack of advanced battery manufacturing.

“Without advanced battery technologies, the U.S. auto sector is at risk of ceding its home market to non-Chinese EVs and falling behind competitors internationally,” the report says.

Furthermore, according to the report, Chinese investment in EV manufacturing in the U.S. probably will remain a no-go and tariffs on Chinese EV imports likely won’t be lifted, even if Democrats resurrected EV incentives following a White House win in 2028.

“Competition among EV manufacturers in international markets will only intensify,” the report notes. “Companies that can offer competitive products in high-growth markets will be best positioned for long-term success.”

Houston’s data center capacity set to grow 80%, report says

data findings

Houston stands to benefit from constraints dogging data center markets elsewhere in Texas, a new report indicates. This comes against the backdrop of Texas surpassing Virginia as the country’s top state for data centers — and amid deepening opposition to these facilities.

The report, published by commercial real estate services provider JLL, foresees Houston continuing to gain traction in data center development as occupants seek “scalable alternatives” to Texas markets experiencing supply-and-demand imbalances.

The Houston area currently hosts data centers with 287 megawatts of capacity, well below capacity levels in the Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin-San Antonio and West Texas markets.

However, the region is witnessing a spike in capacity, with 390 megawatts of capacity under construction, according to the report. Counting newly built data centers, Houston would be home to 677 megawatts of data center capacity, an 80 percent increase from the current inventory, the report says.

Developers target West Houston for large-scale data centers

Developers increasingly are evaluating West Houston and surrounding areas for large-scale campuses capable of supporting behind-the-meter power, according to the report. Data center development in the region is likely to remain concentrated in those areas, where power is readily accessible and flood risks are lower, the report adds.

The report notes that Houston is evolving from a traditionally enterprise-focused co-location market for data centers into a “credible large-scale growth market,” buoyed by rising interest in hyperscale facilities and increased development activity.

Corporate, energy and healthcare users are still active in Houston’s data center market, the report says, with cloud computing and technology tenants making inroads. The Houston market absorbed 25 megawatts of data center capacity in the first half of this year.

Texas crowned No. 1 state market for data center capacity

The growth of Houston’s data center sector is occurring in tandem with Texas’ ascent as a data center market. The report shows Texas now boasts 26 gigawatts of existing and under-construction capacity, followed by Virginia at 13 gigawatts.

JLL declares that “Texas has cemented its position as the state for data centers.”

The “frontier” markets of West Texas, the Carolinas, Louisiana, and Ohio account for 77 percent of all capacity being developed nationwide, according to the report.

As evidence of Texas’ heightened stature in the data center sector, commercial real estate services provider Cushman & Wakefield recently ranked Dallas as the world’s No. 1 primary data center market, while Austin-San Antonio led the list of second-tier markets and West Texas topped the third-tier ranking.

These rankings underscore “Texas’ growing importance as a large-scale AI infrastructure hub,” Cushman & Wakefield says.

Opposition to new data centers in Texas grows

While businesses see the value of adding data centers in Texas, the state’s data center boom is rattling residents and politicians alike.

A recent University of Houston survey finds that although 85 percent of Houston-area residents use AI—a key driver of data center growth—nearly 63 percent oppose construction of a data center within a mile of their home. Experts estimate 6.5 gigawatts of capacity, or roughly one-fifth of the total U.S. pipeline, will join the Texas power grid by 2030, with Houston serving as a main hub.

A poll taken recently by the University of Texas/Texas Politics Project yielded similar results: 56 percent of Texans oppose development of data centers in their community.

“Texas’ grid is already facing pressure from population growth, extreme weather and rising industrial demand,” UH researcher Soran Mohtadi says. “When residents say they are concerned about data centers, they’re mostly referring to grid reliability and affordability.”

Data center backlash prompts action by politicians

Responding to Texans’ concerns over power and water consumption, Gov. Greg Abbott recently imposed a moratorium on new data centers in the state to allow time for regulatory agencies to assess the projects’ impact. Meanwhile, some state lawmakers are calling for a crackdown on data center development.

Last month, a state legislative committee chaired by Sen. Joan Huffman, a Houston Republican, held a hearing on the effects of state sales tax exemptions given to data centers. The cost of these exemptions has climbed from an estimated $14.6 million in 2014-15 to a projected $3.3 billion in 2028-29, according to law firm Holland & Knight.

Two backers of massive data centers in Texas, social media giant Meta Platforms and AI powerhouse OpenAI, agreed this week to comply with Abbott’s recently issued standards regarding data center projects—and more have followed suit.

Dan Diorio, executive vice president of state policy and government affairs for the industry-backed Data Center Coalition, fears backlash against data centers may curb economic growth in Texas.

“I worry that communities that put moratoriums ultimately create too much uncertainty and unpredictability, and what that ultimately means is that those communities may shut themselves off to data center development but also may shut themselves off to broader economic development,” Diorio told Fox 7 News in Austin.

View All Listings