ESG backlash - Why vague ESG no longer works for investors

Why the backlash signals relevance  

Sustainable finance is having a rough season. Alliances that once looked unshakable have splintered under political and legal pressure. Familiar terms like ESG, net zero or stewardship are now used as weapons as often as tools. Many professionals who spent years building teams and practices now find themselves defending not just specific decisions, but the legitimacy of the enterprise itself. 

It is tempting to read this as failure: a fashionable idea exposed as fragile. A more accurate reading is less comforting and more useful. The backlash is not happening because sustainable finance is irrelevant. It is happening because it has become relevant enough to matter. 

Much of today’s debate about sustainable finance now turns on a narrower and more demanding question: what is financially material, and under what conditions? That is a welcome shift. But it has also exposed a tendency to treat materiality as a static classification exercise, rather than a dynamic problem shaped by market failure.  

Concepts such as double materiality have helped clarify that companies both affect the world and are affected by it. But the deeper point is this: environmental and social externalities are often the mechanism through which risk migrates from society onto balance sheets. When markets fail to price those externalities accurately or in time, they do not remain “non-financial” for long. They reappear as regulatory shocks, legal liabilities, cost pressures, or sudden shifts in demand. 

Seen this way, the question is no longer whether sustainability issues are ethically important or politically fashionable. It is whether investors understand how unpriced externalities become financially material and whether their processes can recognise that transition before it is forced on them.  

This is progress, even if it doesn’t feel like it.  

There is also real progress to point to. Some of the most credible initiatives have focused on sectors and issues at the heart of industrial strategy: grid investment in utilities, transition CapEx in cement and steel, and the social and environmental responsibilities embedded in mining. This work is not cheap, and it is not performative. It is the kind of collective effort that emerges when market actors accept that some risks and externalities cannot be managed through isolated analysis alone. 

Inside asset managers, the practice has also become more serious. Many analysts and portfolio managers can now speak clearly about where sustainability-related factors affect cash flows, cost of capital, regulatory exposure, and competitive positioning — and, importantly, where they do not. This matters. It marks a shift from moral argument to  investment argument: from “this is important” to “this affects outcomes.”  

Regulation has played a complicated role in that shift. Standards, disclosure requirements, and evolving interpretations of fiduciary duty have helped define expectations and establish a common vocabulary. But regulation has also exposed an uncomfortable truth: good policy requires good analysis. When rules become overly bureaucratic or blind to how incentives actually function, they invite resistance and weaken trust, even among those who support the direction of travel. 

From commitment to credibility  

One of the clearest signals of where the field now stands is how organisations respond when scrutiny intensifies. As expectations harden and pressure rises, differences in commitment become harder to obscure. Some institutions have embedded sustainability into governance, incentives, and decision-making in ways that endure stress. Others have discovered that their commitments were more fragile than they appeared. This is not a reason for cynicism, but a normal phase in the development of any serious investment practice: durability comes not from assuming uniform conviction, but from being clear about what the work entails and building institutions that can sustain it under pressure. 

The same scrutiny has also exposed the fragility of some high-profile net-zero initiatives.  Many moved from launch to unravelling with surprising speed. The convenient conclusion is that the entire agenda was unserious. A more accurate one is that too many commitments were made before the practical and institutional conditions for delivery had been properly defined. In the rush to signal ambition, parts of the industry committed to outcomes without being explicit enough about the conditions required to deliver them. Many targets assumed policy alignment, regulatory stability, technological progress, and market coordination — conditions that were never guaranteed and only partly within investors’ influence. When those assumptions remained implicit, commitments looked robust in calm conditions but proved fragile when tested. Under sustained pressure, ambiguity collapses.  

What looks like retreat is often a necessary reframing. The more credible approach is not to dilute ambition, but to state commitments more carefully: to be explicit about scope, constraints, and dependencies, and about how those commitments sit alongside duties to clients and beneficiaries.  

That also requires reframing sustainable investment itself. Too often, it is described as an exercise in moral purpose. That framing invites caricature and obscures the practice’s real logic. Properly understood, sustainable investment is risk management tied to purpose. 

Seen through that lens, sustainable investment is not a separate agenda but a set of practices for managing risks that threaten mission. Fiduciary duty is better read as an obligation to competence: to identify, monitor, and manage material risk in clients’ interests. The weakness has not been conceptual alignment, but the failure of many institutions to explain clearly how their sustainability practices perform that function in practice. 

In a more adversarial environment, that articulation is no longer optional. The challenge is not to demonstrate good intentions, but investment relevance. Investors need to explain — precisely and without defensiveness — how sustainability-related analysis informs decisions:  where it improves opportunity assessment, reduces downside risk, and strengthens stewardship priorities, and where its limits lie across strategies and time horizons. Credibility now rests on that level of clarity. The most effective response to the anti-ESG narrative is not cowardice but professionalism: a sophisticated investor cannot plausibly argue that governance quality, the ability to attract and retain skilled employees, exposure to energy costs, or the risk of losing a licence to operate are irrelevant to investment outcomes. Even without any “sustainability” label, these are standard value drivers.  

What maturity requires now  

If anything, the debate has clarified an important point: not all sustainability issues are financially material in all contexts. The ESG community also needs to accept that. Materiality depends on the business model, geography, and time horizon. Some issues may never be material to certain mandates. Others may not be material today but can become material quickly as regulation, technology, and consumer behaviour shift. The analytical challenge is to define what is material, to whom, and when. And to be honest about the boundaries.  

The problem arises when these distinctions are glossed over. Materiality becomes a catch-all justification and “systemic risk” a rhetorical trump card. Used this way, the language sounds expansive but does little analytical work and leaves the field exposed when scrutiny intensifies.  

If sustainable finance is to mature further, it needs less rhetorical certainty and more clarity about the problems it is trying to solve. Too often, solutions are proposed before the risk is properly specified: who bears it, when it crystallises, and how it affects value. Many of these challenges reflect familiar market failures, externalities and information asymmetries, but their portfolio implications are not always made explicit. Without that discipline, debates about materiality, systemic risk, and stewardship blur, and well-intentioned arguments become easier to dismiss than defend.  

The same discipline also has practical implications for implementation. Sustainable finance matures not through broader claims, but through stronger execution capacity and clearer decision-useful analysis.  

The industry also needs to confront a persistent capacity gap, especially within asset management. A few firms have made serious long-term investments in capability, 

embedding sustainability considerations into research, porƞolio construction, and stewardship, and raising internal expectations about what good practice looks like. But this level of integration is far from universal. Many managers still lack the analytical depth, specialist expertise, or organisational bandwidth required to apply these approaches consistently across strategies. That matters because asset managers are where sustainability arguments either translate into investment decisions or quietly fall away.  

Capacity is not a side project; it is the operating system. There is also scope to do the work more efficiently. Much of the analytical burden in sustainable investment lies in filtering signal from noise: Sifting disclosures, data, and claims to identify what is decision-relevant. Used well, advances in artificial intelligence could lower that burden and help smaller or less-resourced managers identify sustainability-related risks and opportunities more effectively. If sustainable finance is to keep maturing, these capacity-building efforts need to expand, alongside practical ways to simplify engagement without diluting rigour. 

None of this is easy. The work is hard because it aims at hard things: changing corporate behaviour, shifting capital allocation, influencing policy, and confronting denial and backlash. It requires resilience: Psychological, emotional, and professional. But it also requires something less discussed: the industry will not regain credibility by whispering. It will regain it by showing its work.  

Retreating into ambiguity is not a strategy. If professionals believe sustainability-related factors affect risk and return, they must be prepared to say so clearly, calmly, and with evidence. If they cannot explain how that work serves clients and beneficiaries, they are not ready for the field’s next phase.  

The backlash is real, and it is painful. But it has also applied a clarifying pressure, forcing sustainable finance to shed vague claims, overpromising, muddled definitions, and borrowed slogans. In their place, it demands the qualities that make any investment discipline durable: precision, transparency, rigour, and accountability. That is what maturity looks like: uneven progress, setbacks, recalibration — and work that stops being fashionable and starts becoming foundational.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Track the real‑world impact behind the sustainability headlines. illuminem’s Data Hub™ offers transparent performance data and climate targets of companies driving the transition.