Can we really make $4 trillion fall from the sky? (Part 2)

21 Oct 2023 | Data is not evidence

In an earlier post, I covered a Moore Global study claiming that companies with strong ESG performance enjoyed higher profits. If all companies took ESG as seriously as the ESG leaders, their profits would rise by $4 trillion in aggregate.

In that post, I highlighted how Moore Global never actually measured a company’s ESG, rather how important it thought ESG was. It was an example of why a statement is not fact — Moore Global stated that they found ‘Bottom line benefits of adopting ESG practices’ even though they never measured ESG practices.

And that’s not the only problem, hence this second post. Even if the study measured actual ESG, it would only find a correlation — companies that do more ESG have higher profits. But that’s not causation — it doesn’t mean that the ESG caused the higher profits, as implied by the ‘Bottom line benefits’ claim. Perhaps ESG leaders differ in many other ways, and it’s those differences that drove the better bottom line. As my colleague Tom Gosling posted on LinkedIn:

Or do companies that are struggling with revenue growth and profitability deprioritise ESG in favour of shorter-term factors? Or are companies in certain sectors both higher growth and more ESG-oriented e.g. due to the nature of their workforce? Or do managers who devote time to ESG issues justify this by saying it makes it easier to raise capital etc? Taking account of material stakeholder issues is clearly an important part of running a great business, but ‘studies’ that make no attempt to control for relevant factors or to consider the possibility of reverse causality or confirmation bias amongst survey participants do nothing to make the case for ESG.

Let’s take a simple example. Imperial Brands has poor ESG performance because it’s a tobacco company; separately, its stock price has fallen by 40% over the past five years. Tesla has strong ESG performance because it produces electric cars; its shares have soared by nearly 1000%. What would have happened instead if Imperial Brands had embraced ESG as enthusiastically as Tesla? (While it couldn’t change its industry, perhaps it could hire a more diverse workforce or stop its executives from flying.) Would its shares have also jumped by 1000%, or it have captured part of the $4 trillion ESG dividend? Of course not, because Tesla’s good performance is much more due to its industry than its ESG.

Nearly everyone knows that ‘correlation doesn’t imply causation’ — but that knowledge goes out the window if confirmation bias is at play and we like the causation being claimed.

Inside the Ivory Tower

Inside the Ivory Tower

In May Contain Lies, I highlight the value of academic research. While it's far from perfect, it can be more reliable than practitioner studies for a number of reasons: Its goal is scientific inquiry, rather than advocacy of a pre-existing position or releasing findings to improve a company's image. It's conducted by those with expertise in conducting scientific research. Papers published in top scientific journals are peer-reviewed, which helpsimprove their accuracy. However, authors, journalists, and practitioners will sometimes cite research as if it bears the hallmark ...
Does only 2% of VC funding go to female founders?

Does only 2% of VC funding go to female founders?

A widely quoted statistic is that only 2% of VC funding goes to female founders. For example, this Forbes article highlights that "only 2% of all VC funding goes to women-led startups" and asks "Why is only 2% of VC funding going to female founders"? If true, this statistic is substantial underrepresentation and needs to be urgently addressed. However, it's problematic for several reasons. 1. The Statistic Ignores Diverse Teams The 2% statistic actually refers to companies founded solely by women. It ignores diverse companies founded by both men and women. This is strange, because ...
An unhealthy obsession with organisational health

An unhealthy obsession with organisational health

Two leading asset management firms drew my attention to the McKinsey Organizational Health Index as a potential tool to evaluate a company. A book, "Beyond Performance 2.0: A Proven Approach to Leading Large-Scale Change", written by two McKinsey partners, claimed that companies with high scores on this Index trounced their unhealthy peers along a range of performance measures. For example, their shareholder returns were three times as high. But as I wrote in an earlier post, rather than being more impressed by big numbers, we should be more sceptical. If it were really possible to ...