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

Solidec partners with Australian company for clean hydrogen peroxide pilot​

rare earth pilot

Solidec has partnered with Australia-based Lynas Rare Earth, an environmentally responsible producer of rare earth oxides and materials, to reduce emissions from hydrogen peroxide production.

The partnership marks a milestone for the Houston-based clean chemical manufacturing startup, as it would allow the company to accelerate the commercialization of its hydrogen peroxide generation technology, according to a news release.

"This collaboration is a major milestone for Solidec and a catalyst for sustainability in rare earths," Yang Xia, co-founder and CTO of Solidec, said in the release. "Solidec's technology can reduce the carbon footprint of hydrogen peroxide production by up to 90%. By combining our generators with the scale of a global leader in rare earths, we can contribute to a more secure, sustainable supply of critical minerals."

Through the partnership, Solidec will launch a pilot program of its autonomous, on-site generators at Lynas's facility in Australia. Solidec's generators extract molecules from water and air and convert them into carbon emission-free chemicals and fuels, like hydrogen peroxide. The generators also eliminate the need for transport, storage and permitting, making for a simpler, more efficient process for producing hydrogen peroxide than the traditional anthraquinone process.

"Hydrogen peroxide is essential to rare earth production, yet centralized manufacturing adds cost and complexity," Ryan DuChanois, co-founder and CEO of Solidec, added in the release. "By generating peroxide directly on-site, we're reinventing the chemical supply chain for efficiency, resilience, and sustainability."

The companies report that the pilot is expected to generate 10 tons of hydrogen peroxide per year.

If successful, the pilot would serve as a model for large-scale deployments of Solidec's generators across Lynas' operations—and would have major implications for the high-performance magnet, electric vehicles, wind turbine, and advanced electronics industries, which rely on rare earth elements.

"This partnership with Solidec is another milestone on the path to achieving our Towards 2030 vision," Luke Darbyshire, general manager of R&I at Lynas, added. "Working with Solidec allows us to establish transformative chemical supply pathways that align with our innovation efforts, while contributing to our broader vision for secure, sustainable rare earth supply chains."

How executive education retains your best employees + drives success

Investing in People

Hiring is tough, but retaining great people is even harder. Ask almost any manager what keeps them up at night, and the answer usually comes back to the same thing: How do we keep our best employees growing here instead of looking elsewhere?

One reliable approach has held up across industries. When people see their employer investing in their development, they’re more likely to stay, contribute, and imagine a future with the organization.

The data backs this up. Employees who take part in ongoing training are far less likely to leave, and the effect is especially strong for younger workers. One national survey found that 86% of millennials would stay with an employer that invests in their development. Companies that build a real learning culture see retention jump by 30-50%. The pattern is consistent: When people can learn and advance, they stay.

The ROI of executive education
Professional development signals value, but it also builds capability. When people have access to structured learning, they become better problem-solvers, more adaptable, and more confident leading through change.

That's the focus of Executive Education at Rice University's Jones Graduate School of Business. The portfolio is built for the realities of modern leadership: AI and digital transformation courses for teams navigating new technologies, and deeper programs in innovation and strategy for leaders sharpening long-term thinking.

“People, managers, professionals, and executives in all functional areas of business can benefit from this program,” notes Jing Zhou, Mary Gibbs Jones Professor of Management and Psychology at Rice. “We teach the fundamental principles of how to drive innovation and broaden the cognitive space.”

That perspective runs through every offering, from the Rice Advanced Management Program to the Leadership Accelerator and Leading Innovation. Each program gives participants practical tools to think strategically, work across teams and make meaningful change inside their organizations.

Building the leadership pipeline
Leadership development isn’t a perk anymore. It’s a strategic need for any organization that wants to grow and stay competitive.

Employers know this — nearly two-thirds say leadership training is essential to their success — yet employees still report feeling stalled. Reports find 74% of employees feel they aren’t reaching their potential because they lacked meaningful growth opportunities.

Rice Business designs its Executive Education programs to address that gap. The Rice Advanced Management Program, for example, supports leaders preparing for C-suite, board, or enterprise-level roles. Its format — two in-person modules separated by several weeks — gives participants space to test ideas at work, return with questions, and build on what they’ve learned. The structure fits demanding executive schedules while creating room for deeper reflection and richer peer connections.

Just as important, the program helps senior leaders align on strategy and culture. Participants develop a shared language and build stronger relationships, which translates into clearer decision-making, better collaboration, and less burnout across teams.

Houston’s advantage
Houston gives Rice Business Executive Education a distinctive edge. The city’s position in energy, healthcare, logistics, and innovation means participants are learning in the middle of a global business ecosystem. That proximity brings a mix of perspectives you don’t get in more siloed markets, and it pushes leaders to apply ideas to real-world problems in real time.

The expertise runs deep on campus, as well. Participants learn from faculty who are shaping conversations in their fields, not just teaching from a playbook. For many organizations, that outside perspective is a meaningful complement to in-house training — a chance to stretch thinking, challenge assumptions, and broaden leadership capacity.

Rice Business offers multiple paths into that experience, from open-enrollment programs like Leading Organizational Change, Executive Leadership for Women, or Driving Growth through AI and Digital Transformation to fully customized corporate partnerships. Across all formats, the focus is the same: education that is practical, relevant, and built for impact.

Investing in retention and results
When organizations make room for real development, the payoff shows up quickly: higher engagement, stronger leadership pipelines, and lower turnover. It also shapes the culture. People are more willing to take risks, ask better questions, and stay curious when they know learning is part of the job.

As Brent Smith, senior associate dean for Executive Education at Rice Business, explains, “There’s a layer of learning in leadership that’s about helping people adopt a leadership identity — to see themselves as the actual leader for their organization. That’s not an easy transition, but it’s the foundation of lasting success.”

For companies that want to build loyalty, deepen leadership capacity, and stay competitive in a fast-changing environment, investing in people isn’t optional. Rice Business Executive Education offers a clear path to do it well. Learn more here.

Check out upcoming programs:

Chevron and ExxonMobil feed the need for gas-powered data centers

data center demand

Two of the Houston area’s oil and gas goliaths, Chevron and ExxonMobil, are duking it out in the emerging market for natural gas-powered data centers—centers that would ease the burden on electric grids.

Chevron said it’s negotiating with an unnamed company to supply natural gas-generated power for the data center industry, whose energy consumption is soaring mostly due to AI. The power would come from a 2.5-gigawatt plant that Chevron plans to build in West Texas. The company says the plant could eventually accommodate 5 gigawatts of power generation.

The Chevron plant is expected to come online in 2027. A final decision on investing in the plant will be made next year, Jeff Gustavson, vice president of Chevron’s low-carbon energy business, said at a recent gathering for investors.

“Demand for gas is expected to grow even faster than for oil, including the critical role gas will play [in] providing the energy backbone for data centers and advanced computing,” Gustavson said.

In January, the company’s Chevron USA subsidiary unveiled a partnership with investment firm Engine No. 1 and energy equipment manufacturer GE Vernova to develop large-scale natural gas power plants co-located with data centers.

The plants will feature behind-the-meter energy generation and storage systems on the customer side of the electricity meter, meaning they supply power directly to a customer without being connected to an electric grid. The venture is expected to start delivering power by the end of 2027.

Chevron rival ExxonMobil is focusing on data centers in a slightly different way.

ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Darren Woods said the company aims to enable the capture of more than 90 percent of emissions from data centers. The company would achieve this by building natural gas plants that incorporate carbon capture and storage technology. These plants would “bring a unique advantage” to the power market for data centers, Woods said.

“In the near to medium term, we are probably the only realistic game in town to accomplish that,” he said during ExxonMobil’s third-quarter earnings call. “I think we can do it pretty effectively.”

Woods said ExxonMobil is in advanced talks with hyperscalers, or large-scale providers of cloud computing services, to equip their data centers with low-carbon energy.

“We will see what gets translated into actual contracts and then into construction,” he said.

View All Listings