The Most Controversial Idea That Everyone Agrees With
The 'ESG' picture doesn't need to be banned in this political environment, but it definitely needs a new frame
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
— Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.”
— William Penn
While the adversity faced by Dr. King and Mr. Penn is far greater than any debate over whether the term ESG should be used in today’s investment conversations, their examples remind us of what can unfold when we fail to stand by our convictions early on. When we continually bend to every discomfort or semantic objection, we risk trivializing the very ideas these concepts were designed to advance: watering down the language surrounding ESG means that we risk watering down the impact as well.
Whenever I’m asked if we should search for softer labels or diluted terminology to use to describe ‘ESG’ or ‘SRI’, I say — Why? How many more acronyms are you going to use to describe the same concept just to avoid getting dragged into another culture war?
This has been our reality for well over two decades now: there are moments in our public discourse when something practical and uncontroversial becomes swept into the culture wars—when a tool becomes a symbol and nuance disappears in favor of soundbites. ESG, SRI, and sustainable investing have unfortunately landed in precisely that space. But here’s the truth:
ESG is not, and has never been, inherently political.
It is not a belief system.
It is not a moral ranking of companies.
It is not activism in disguise.
ESG is just one tool in the toolkit—a structured, research-driven way to evaluate risks and opportunities that traditional financial analysis has historically overlooked. It helps investors answer pragmatic questions: Is this company prepared for supply chain disruptions? Do its labor practices increase the likelihood of lawsuits or costly turnover? Is it managing regulatory, environmental, or governance risks that could materially affect its bottom line?
That’s not ideology. That’s simply good financial planning. If critics still can’t understand that, allow me to outline exactly why I feel that I shouldn’t have to back off using any sustainability acronyms, particularly ‘ESG’:
What Investors Actually Use ESG For
Despite what the headlines often imply, the vast majority of investors aren’t using ESG screens to reward “good” companies or punish “bad” ones. ESG factors are used to manage risk and uncover long-term value — plain and simple. In fact, 85% of institutional investors globally report using ESG factors to improve risk-adjusted returns (MSCI, 2023), and 76% of global asset owners incorporate ESG primarily to identify financially material risks, not for values-based reasons (PRI, 2024).
Strip the acronym away, and ESG is simply the modern evolution of risk analysis—closer to insurance underwriting than activism.
We’ve Actually Been Using ESG for Decades
One of the great ironies of the ESG debate is that the financial system has quietly incorporated many ESG principles for decades without a shred of controversy. Credit rating agencies like Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch have long integrated environmental and governance factors into assessments of creditworthiness. Insurance companies have been modeling climate and natural-disaster risk since the 1980s. And the SEC has required companies to disclose material risks—including environmental and human-capital risks—since 1934. We didn’t suddenly discover that employee turnover affects productivity or that natural disasters disrupt supply chains. We simply began measuring these realities with more precision.
Businesses Are Doing This for Business Reasons
If you spend any time in boardrooms, it becomes clear that ESG has nothing to do with politics. Executives are focused on supply chain disruptions, regulatory exposure, talent recruitment and retention, and litigation or reputational risk. And these concerns aren’t theoretical: the U.S. has faced $313 billion in climate-related supply chain disruptions over the past five years (NOAA, 2024), and companies with weak workplace culture face turnover costs amounting to 20–50% of an employee’s annual salary (Gallup, 2023). These are business challenges, not cultural identity questions.
No CEO says, “We should reduce wildfire exposure in our logistics chain because it’s political.” They do it because it’s strategically necessary.
Most Americans Actually Agree on the Underlying Principles
Here’s the part that rarely makes the headlines…According to a 2024 Pew Research survey:
72% of Americans believe companies should work to minimize environmental harm
65% believe they should avoid human rights abuses, and
79% support greater transparency around risks that could affect investors.
Those statements are, at their core, ESG. The label may be contested, but the underlying values are not.
So, Why Does ESG Feel Political?
Because when conversations focus on labels, they trigger identity reactions. We’ve heard this from basically every issue that each political side has decided to latch onto.
People hear the acronym ESG and immediately map it onto their political tribe, even if they don’t actually know what it means. But when we strip away the label and describe the underlying practices in plain, everyday language—
evaluating long-term risks
paying attention to supply chain vulnerabilities
avoiding costly lawsuits
making sure executives aren’t committing fraud
ensuring factories aren’t one storm away from shutting down
—people recognize it as common-sense financial diligence.
Tell someone you’re “assessing climate exposure in a regional logistics network,” and they nod along. Tell them you’re “monitoring employee turnover to reduce productivity losses,” and they call it smart management.
Tell them you’re “reviewing governance practices so executives can’t hide liabilities off the balance sheet,” and they call it responsible oversight. All of these are ESG practices—none of them sound ideological.
ESG becomes political only when it’s framed as ideology.
When it’s presented as risk management, due diligence, or operational foresight, it becomes something entirely different: just good business. You fix the discrepancies by educating people, and refusing to back down, using it to evaluate business risks as it was meant to.
Reframe It!
If we want to bring the ESG conversation back to its practical roots, we need to change the way we frame it. That means shifting from lofty abstractions to the real purpose the framework serves.
Not: “ESG investing is about changing the world.”
But: “ESG helps investors understand the full picture of what influences a company’s performance—financial and otherwise.”
Not: “ESG rewards good companies.”
But: “ESG helps investors avoid risks that are foreseeable and preventable.”
And not: “ESG is a political identity.”
But: “ESG is a decision-making tool—no different from any other method investors use to understand risk.”
When we focus on what ESG does rather than what it’s called, the polarization dissolves. The conversation becomes clearer, rational, and useful.
A word of advice to advisors: If you remove the acronym and simply describe the underlying practices—like assessing climate exposure, labor practices, or governance structure—people immediately recognize that this is just smart investing, not a political stance.
Then, if they ask you, “What is that called?” proudly respond:
“That’s ESG.”