ESG: Intrinsic Value or Stakeholder Punchcard?
The case for authentic ESG leadership in the era of performative compliance.
Image: Shutterstock
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks became central to corporate strategy and investor decision making over the past decade. Proponents claim that ESG offers intrinsic value, embedding sustainability, ethics, and sound governance into business operations to improve long-term outcomes for both companies and society. Sounds like a plus for any organization. Critics, however, argue that ESG has morphed into a compliance checklist or marketing tactic, serving mainly to gain stakeholder approval and access to preferential financing or competitive advantage. The reality lies in a nuanced examination of both perspectives.
From a conceptual standpoint, ESG does possess intrinsic value. Businesses operate within natural, social, and political ecosystems. Neglecting environmental impacts can result in resource depletion, regulatory penalties, or reputational harm. Social responsibility, including employee well-being, community engagement, and equitable supply chains, directly influences productivity and brand loyalty. Governance, the most overlooked component, plays a vital role in internal controls, accountability, and risk mitigation. In this sense, ESG principles align with long-term business resilience and sustainability.
Numerous studies support this. For instance, firms with robust ESG frameworks often demonstrate lower volatility and superior risk-adjusted returns. MSCI and Morningstar have both shown that ESG-focused funds can outperform traditional funds over certain time horizons, particularly during periods of economic uncertainty [1,2]. Additionally, stakeholder expectations have evolved—millennials and Gen Z, now major parts of the workforce and consumer base, favor companies that align with their ethical and environmental values [3]. Companies ignoring ESG may lose relevance, talent, and market share.
However, the counterargument holds substantial weight. ESG, in practice, is often reduced to a punchcard, i.e., a series of loosely defined metrics designed to signal virtue rather than deliver real impact. Greenwashing, or the exaggeration of environmental credentials, is rampant. ESG rating systems are inconsistent and often contradictory, allowing companies to score high despite questionable practices[4]. Furthermore, investors may push ESG adoption less for its ethical merits and more for access to green capital, regulatory favor, or public relations benefits.
Recent controversies highlight this skepticism. Major oil and gas companies have maintained high ESG ratings despite continued fossil fuel expansion. Tech companies, while scoring well on governance or social policies, have been embroiled in privacy, labor, and misinformation issues. This disconnect suggests that ESG is often gamed or selectively applied to meet the expectations of investors and regulators, rather than to drive fundamental change [5].
In conclusion, ESG has intrinsic value, and when genuinely implemented, it can enhance long-term sustainability, risk management, and stakeholder trust. Yet in today’s corporate environment, ESG is frequently instrumentalized as a strategic tool to gain favorable financing, attract customers, and appease regulators. For ESG to fulfill its original promise, it must evolve beyond optics into action. Clearer standards, independent audits, and stakeholder accountability are needed to distinguish authentic ESG leadership from performative compliance. Only then can ESG become more than a punchcard and serve as a true compass for responsible capitalism.