CEO的ESG困境

A consensus has emerged in recent years that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues are crucially important for the corporate world. But what should companies do about investors who won’t accept lower returns in order to further ESG goals?

In a recent PwC survey, global investors placed ESG-related outcomes such as effective corporate governance and greenhouse-gas emissions reduction among their top five priorities for business to deliver. But 81% went on to say they would accept only a 1 percentage point or smaller reduction in returns to advance ESG objectives—both those that are relevant to the business and those that have a beneficial impact on society. And roughly half of that group were es- pecially unyielding and would not accept any decline in returns at all.

For chief executives and boards, the disconnect with investors presents a di- lemma: can their company perform well for investors and pursue a clear ESG strategy at the same time? We believe the answer is yes, if companies find the right balance between short-term performance requirements and the invest- ments needed to meet longer-term ESG goals. To be sure, as companies invest in ESG initiatives (for example, in the technologies and systems needed to sup- port future regulations and any net-zero commitments they have made), they may face pushback and short-term share price swings. But in the long run, as climate change increasingly affects value preservation and the ability to deliv-er sustained profits, the total accumulated value of not investing in ESG will be significantly lower than a successful ESG approach. The key is to define a

convincing long-term ESG path to create value within the boundaries of the short-term KPIs that address investors’ performance expectations. Taking their stakeholders—and in particular their shareholders—along the journey toward that longer-term vision is how companies can address the disconnect between short-term pressures and longer-term opportunities.

The narrative of that journey must demonstrate considerable coherence, which can emerge only as companies find their best-fitting strategic stance on ESG and tie it explicitly to value creation. Companies that pursue a strategically clear stance (or true north) toward ESG can help investors and other stakehold- ers understand the boundaries or guardrails of their company—what they’ll do with regard to ESG, where they’ll play, and which capabilities they’ll develop themselves (versus looking to ecosystem partners to provide), while clarify- ing decisions and resource allocation. Because a good articulation of your true north helps make clear the unique value your company creates for customers and society, it enables the creation of the coherent narrative investors need. Is your entire corporate strategy defined by ESG? Is your strategy to simply con- form with legal and regulatory requirements? Or is your stance somewhere in between?

Getting your ESG stance right helps you think through another key consid- eration: the business ecosystems of which you are and should be a part. Why ecosystems? Because competition is increasingly won or lost on the basis of eco- systems. These networks of companies and institutions help coordinate multiple participants, which may offer the only way to tackle complex, far-reaching chal- lenges such as ESG (in part by helping mitigate strategic, regulatory, and other forms of risk). Ecosystems are growing ever more relevant to how companies create and capture value. Yet many of the ecosystems needed to advance ESG goals—such as those in transportation and energy, or those working to reduce Scope 3 emissions in supply chains—are only in the early stages of formation or will need to be built from scratch.