Where ESG Fails

Michael E. Porter; George  Serafeim; Mark  Kramer

Article | Institutional Investor | October 16, 2019

Where ESG Fails

by Michael E. Porter, George Serafeim and Mark Kramer

Abstract

We are entering a new stage of understanding of the linkage between investment performance and social impact. Previous approaches, such as socially responsible investing and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) screening, have obscured the opportunities for higher growth, profitability, and competitive advantage that come from creating shared value: addressing social and environmental issues as integral to a company’s core strategic positioning. A shared value approach to investing can deliver superior shareholder returns, but capturing that value will require very different practices on the part of both corporate leaders and investors.

Keywords: ESG; sustainability; environment; social impact; impact investing; ESG (environmental, social, governance) performance; ESG reporting; shared value; Environmental Sustainability; Social Issues; Investment; Value; Strategy;

Format: Electronic

Read Now

Citation:

Porter, Michael E., George Serafeim, and Mark Kramer. "Where ESG Fails." Institutional Investor (October 16, 2019).

We apply the product impact measurement framework of the Impact-Weighted Accounts Initiative (IWAI) in two competitor companies within the airlines industry. We design a monetization methodology that allows us to calculate monetary impact estimates of fare affordability, timeliness and gate control, among other factors. Our results indicate substantial differences in the impact that competitors have through their products. These differences demonstrate how impact reflects corporate strategy and informs decision-making on industry-specific areas, including airline route structure choices.

We apply the product impact measurement framework of the Impact-Weighted Accounts Initiative (IWAI) in two competitor credit card providers within the consumer finance industry. We design a monetization methodology that allows us to calculate monetary impact estimates on cardholder access to credit, affordability for merchants, financial health, and recyclability, among other factors. Our results indicate substantial differences in the impact that competitors have through their products. These differences demonstrate how impact reflects corporate strategy and informs decision-making on industry-specific areas.

Organizations create significant positive and negative impacts through their employment practices. This paper builds on the substantial body of research regarding job quality and impact measurement to present a framework for monetized analysis of employment impact. We identify and propose a framework for measuring the four most salient dimensions of impact for employees, including wage quality, career advancement, opportunity, and health and wellbeing, as well as two principle impacts, diversity and employment location, for the broader labor community. The framework and methodology for calculating employment impact-weighted accounting figures is applied to several large corporations, resulting in positive impacts that range between 25 and 249% of their EBITDA suggesting significant heterogeneity in employment practices across organizations. These results demonstrate the feasibility of calculating employment impact in monetary terms, and provide a foundation for future application across additional geographies and contexts.

Faculty & Research

Where ESG Fails

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors