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

ExxonMobil expands Gulf Coast CCS business with Louisiana deal

carbon contract

Spring-based energy powerhouse ExxonMobil has picked up another project in the carbon capture and storage (CCS) market.

Natural gas pipeline operator Williams Cos. has tapped ExxonMobil to transport and store up to one metric ton per year of CO2 from Williams’ natural gas collection and processing plant in southwest Louisiana’s Haynesville Shale.

Williams will transport natural gas via its Louisiana Energy Gateway pipeline, then process the natural gas and deliver it to the Gulf Coast for export as liquefied natural gas (LNG). The LNG will be used in power generation, residential and commercial heating, and industrial processes.

Williams recently agreed to acquire Momentum Midstream for up to $5.5 billion to expand Williams’ LNG presence in the Haynesville Shale. Haynesville is the country’s third-largest producer of natural gas.

Once the deal closes, Williams will own a $1.5 billion project in southwest Louisiana that will expand capacity of the Transco natural gas distribution system. The system serves power and LNG-export customers. Williams will also gain over 4,000 miles of pipeline and more than one million acres.

While Williams is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma, it has a significant presence in Houston. Last month, Green Street’s Real Estate Alert reported Williams bought the 64-story, 1.4 million-square-foot Williams Tower south of The Galleria from Invesco Real Estate for more than $300 million. The company will occupy about 360,000 square feet in the skyscraper for its Houston hub.

Williams employs about 800 people in Bayou City, including roughly 700 who work at Williams Tower, and plans to hire another 100 by the end of this year.

The Williams deal is ExxonMobil’s seventh CCS contract. ExxonMobil’s CCS portfolio supports LNG, lower-carbon-intensity steel, ammonia, natural gas processing, industrial gases and methanol.

ExxonMobil has established a “carbon superhighway” along the Gulf Coast to fuel its CCS business. The company owns and operates a more than 1,300-mile CO2 pipeline system, the largest in the U.S.

“Carbon capture is becoming an increasingly important part of industrial operations, but capture alone doesn’t solve the problem of high emissions,” says ExxonMobil. “What matters next is how CO2 is transported, used, and stored.”

ExxonMobil’s CCS initiatives are aimed at capturing a chunk of the rapidly growing CCS market in the U.S. Straits Research forecasts the market will grow from $5.66 billion this year to $13.56 billion by 2034.

“It’s not every day you get to witness the birth of a new American industry, but that’s exactly what’s happening right now at the U.S. Gulf Coast,” Dominic Genetti, senior vice president of CCS at ExxonMobil, wrote in an article published last year on the company’s website.

Fervo Energy, Mercury Fund leaders named first experts in residence for TEX-E

energy mentors

Two leading companies in Houston's clean energy scene have been named the Texas Exchange for Energy & Climate Entrepreneurship's first experts in residence.

TEX-E announced this month that Houston-based geothermal unicorn Fervo Energy and venture capital firm Mercury Fund have joined the nonprofit's new Expert-in-Residence partnership. The program aims to connect TEX-E Fellows with "the people and organizations shaping the future of energy and entrepreneurship."

The 2026 TEX-E Fellows were named in June and include 67 students from six Texas universities and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Nineteen are from Houston universities. See the full list here.

Through the Expert-in-Residence program, fellows will be able to network and work with:

"More than anything, students need the determination and creativity to step outside of their comfort zones and tackle problems that lack clear answers. At Fervo, we've consistently bet on young people who lack traditional 'hard skills' but are willing to embrace uncertainty and learn on the job. That open-mindedness will take students far," Jewett said in a prepared statement. Fervo named Jewett as COO in June.

TEX-E was founded in 2022 through partnerships with MIT Martin Trust Center for Entrepreneurship and Greentown Labs. It works with university students from six schools: Rice University, University of Houston, Prairie View A&M University, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University and MIT.

The organization named Houston venture capital and innovation leader Sandy Guitar as its new executive director last year. Guitar previously served as general partner and managing director at Houston-based VC firm HX Venture Fund and is co-founder of Weathergage Capital.

TEX-E is known for its student track within the Energy Venture Day and Pitch Competition at CERAWeek. It awarded $50,000 to student teams from the University of Texas and Rice University. Read more here.

BP to sell Houston’s Archaea Energy after $4.1 billion bet on biogas

RNG exit

Oil and gas conglomerate BP is unloading its Houston-based U.S. renewable natural gas business just four years after buying it.

The British company announced the planned sale of Archaea during its most recent earnings call but offered few details.

On the call, BP’s new CEO, Meg O’Neill, said her company had put Archaea on the market and already had attracted interest from potential buyers. BP acquired Houston-based Archaea Energy, the country’s largest producer of renewable natural gas (RNG), in 2022 for about $4.1 billion.

BP, whose North American headquarters is in Houston, is streamlining its portfolio. As such, O’Neill said Archaea represents a “capital intense” approach to biogas instead of the “capital light” approach BP now favors.

“If there’s somebody who sees an opportunity to create additional value, who will invest in that business, who will build on the foundation, because our team has made really good progress in improving the profitability of that business, then that will be a good outcome,” O’Neill told Wall Street analysts.

The proposed sale of Archaea is part of BP’s effort to sell about $20 billion in assets by the end of next year.

Archaea captures biogas, a natural byproduct of waste decomposition at landfills and dairy farms, and converts it into electricity or RNG. This process leads to cleaner air, less odor, and more sustainable energy than traditional fossil fuels.

Archaea was slated to be a cornerstone of BP’s plan to boost its biogas supply by roughly 600 percent to the equivalent of about 70,000 barrels of oil per day.

Bioenergy had been identified as one of bp’s five pillars of its multibillion-dollar energy transition initiative.

Another pillar: EV charging. Last month, BP agreed to sell its EV charging business in Austria to Switzerland’s Volenergy, along with 250 BP-branded stores and a fleet of business vehicles.

“By concentrating our capital on the assets and markets where BP can be most competitive and best serve customers, we are strengthening our balance sheet and creating a stronger downstream portfolio,” Richard Harding, interim executive vice president of downstream at BP, said of the Volenergy deal.

View All Listings