Smart Money Is Already Green
Whether through increased consumer demand, stricter regulations on a global level or the skyrocketing prices of doing nothing, the green transition is not idealism but rather strategy, strength and good business. Political headlines may shout reversals, but the core economics of sustainability remain unmoved.
Political winds, like fickle winds, can change direction alarmingly quickly. The recent past has been characterized by several governments reducing climate commitments, exiting international agreements, and even gutting of funding to clean-energy initiatives which, more often than not, elicits a communal groan of dismay among the environmental stewardship advocates. But here is the thing: these political swings, as disruptive as they most certainly are, do not, and cannot possibly, undermine the basic business case of sustainability. Any other view is to misunderstand the more lasting tectonic plates of world business and social anticipation.
The Unceasing Market Demand
Consider: the customer. The story, for long, had been that sustainability was a luxury, a nice-to-have, a thing of comfort to which the well-heeled or the ideologically pure could indulge. However, the reality depicted by hard data is very different. Consumers are not merely stating that they care, they are putting their money where their mouth is and are turning sentiment into sales. Products with ESG-related claims are not only keeping up, they are beating their non-claiming peers, with substantial growth in the last 5 years. This is not a passing fad or a niche market, the attractiveness of environmentally and socially responsible products has crossed over demographics and now embraces a broad spectrum of consumers of all incomes and at all stages of life. Even own-label brands are taking market share by adopting such claims as a fundamental turn-around whereby cheapness meets environmental responsibility.
And it’s not just marketplaces. Internally too, a commitment to sustainability has made firms a much more attractive proposition for talent. The brightest minds, especially from younger generations, are also actively pursuing employers who share similar values with them on environmental and social matters. Lack of action on this front is not only poor publicity but also a talent squeeze as it rejects up to roughly 20% job applicants who are ESG performance-conscious. A responsible business is not just an ethical business, it is also a talent-based business.
Regulatory Gravity
Even though a shift in federal policy may grab the headlines, the regulatory environment regarding sustainability is no longer dominated by a single national capital. It is a complicated fabric made of global, regional and even sub-national fibres, all of which are narrowing the weave around corporate activities. An example is the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) of the European Union, which requires reporting encompassing thousands of companies, irrespective of their headquarter locations. Likewise, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) is establishing international standards, and nations as varied as Brazil and Japan are heading towards making them mandatory.
Even in the United States, individual states are implementing their own climate disclosure regulations, such as California, which is making a patchwork quilt of rules that businesses have to comply with. And to suppose that a change of federal focus can just unravel these multi-faceted, internationally inter-twined pressures, is to have a profoundly false notion of the global reality of contemporary business. Rather than a voluntary virtue, regulatory compliance is an increasingly mandatory means of not incurring legal problems, fines and the eroding effects of bad publicity.
The Hard Economics of Doing Nothing
But maybe the strongest case of all in favor of green business is not about moral scruples, but about money. Doing nothing is no longer a passive option; it is an active, and usually a ruinous, cost. The low-carbon transformation is imposing an astounding cost on the laggards: up to 2.3 trillion dollars in fossil fuels assets are at risk of becoming so-called stranded assets before the expiry of their useful lives, according to estimates by the International Energy Agency and others. And it is not a theoretical danger, it is a direct result of turning a blind eye to the inevitable.
Notwithstanding the ghost of stranded assets, even current operational costs of clinging to the old paradigm are growing rapidly, such as through the increase in environmental taxes and legal charges. The most intangible of assets, reputation, is also the most easily destroyed in a moment – as BP found out to its immense pain – when it lost stock value of nearly $32 million a day in the aftermath of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Companies that chase sustainable initiatives on the other hand, have been found to reap tangible financial benefits: lower operational costs, due to energy efficiency (DuPont realized a saving of $2 billion over 10 years, for example), preferential capital rates, and even new sources of income through green products and services.
—
The argument of green business goes beyond political cycles since it forms the basis of resilience over time. Climate change, resource scarcity and social inequalities are here to stay and their effects, including supply chain disruption and volatile resource prices are increasingly defining the competitive environment. It is the clear obligation of boards to evaluate and mitigate these risks and in fact, they may be legally responsible in the event that they do not.
When companies integrate sustainability in core strategy, they are not simply checking the boxes; they are creating stronger, more flexible business models. They are minimizing resource consumption by making use of the circular economy, decreasing reliance on exhaustible inputs, and encouraging innovation. This enables them to work through the dark, reduce risks and seize any new opportunities.
The notion that the political developments undermine the rationale of a green business is a fallacy that could be disastrous. It supposes that the interlocking, compound causes of sustainability – consumer demand, global regulation, financial risk and even the pursuit of corporate resilience itself – are simple shadows of the passing political agenda. They are not so. They are the unchangeable laws of a fluctuating economic world. It just so happens that smart money is already green.