Where Next for ESG?

What is ESG?

The term ESG was coined in 2004 by Clements-Hunt and his team while working at the U.N. It is an investment strategy that promotes investing in companies that perform well in the following three categories: Environmental, Social and Governance. ESG has disrupted traditional ways of thinking about risk – it provides a framework to consider the present and future impact. Reporting with this framework gets companies to reconsider how they approach risk management in a way that meets the challenges of this century. Such challenges include climate change, war crimes, and poor corporate governance. Companies are usually rated according to many factors and then provided a final ESG score based on their performance across all three categories. It is important to note that ESG does not measure environment or social impact – that is called impact investing, which goes beyond ESG assessments. The leading ESG rating firm, MSCI, says that ESG ratings are “designed for one purpose: to measure a company’s resilience to financially material ESG risks”. Hence, these ratings are not fit to measure a company’s actual environmental or social impact, and impact investors use different tools for that. ESG has three different investment approaches: positive screening, active ownership, and ESG integration. You can read about ESG and impact investing in more detail in our previous post What is Sustainable Investing?

Why question things now?

In the initial launch of the ESG framework, there was a clear message: think, document, do. It has become clear that by many, there is limited evidence of the ‘do’, poor effort in the ‘document’, and halfhearted effort in the ‘think’. There is a growing weight of legislation behind ESG, yet there still seems to be a gap between the potential of ESG and the reality of its use. So why are things being questioned now? As Euromoney put it: Russia attacks, investors flee. Where next for ESG? With the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, investors are revisiting the framework and borders of ESG. Putin’s war crimes have shone a spotlight on the cracks in the world of ESG. The attacks on Ukraine have exposed some of the dubious choices financial managers selling ESG investments have made.

ESG funds held about $8.3billion in Russian assets just before the war, including energy giants and bonds sold by the Russian government.

Yahoo Finance

Is it the framework that’s the issue? Is it the application of the framework? Are there specific risks that need to be reviewed? This article breaks down the three main areas in question.

What is being questioned?


Funds are “dumping” Russia left, right, and center for humanitarian, ethical reasons, and rightly so. Recent events are turning a harsh light on sustainable development as banks and investors ask what ESG really means. If ESG is about risk management, why were so many still investing in Russia right up until the point of war? Russia was at risk of committing humanitarian crimes before the day of invading Ukraine- it was no surprise and not the first time. According to Our World in Data, Russia scored poorly on human rights metrics with a rating of 1.19 in the latest data collection. We need to consider how so many countries, companies, and funds are in a position where they need to divest from Russia? Why are they invested in the first place if ESG ratings would account for humanitarian risk under the “S”?

Some argue that ESG started in a good place but is too vague (thus allowing misuse of ESG ratings) or too rigid (thus resulting in stocks that scored high in ESG performing poorly). Sustainable investing became so popular that many new financial products appeared to have been “created”. ESG stickers got put on old unethical funds – essentially for greenwashing – causing the apparent “record-breaking year” for sustainable funds. According to Bloomberg Intelligence, the global ESG market equates to $40 trillion of assets. It’s clearly a popular framework, but how is it that so many funds can score well in this risk framework, yet it is clear the world is not mitigating risk all that well when it comes to climate change and war crimes.

Others argue that it is not the boundaries that present difficulty. Rather, ESG is just being executed poorly on a wide scale. A Deloitte survey found that companies are indeed working towards improving sustainability reporting. Still, there remains a vast gap to meet ESG transparency demands. Areas lacking include data quality, reporting consistency, technology, and governance. The survey looked at the most significant players with revenues greater than $500 million in finance, accounting, and sustainability.

In questioning functionality, the answer is not a simple yes or no. ESG is functional but is poorly executed by many and requires greater flexibility in some sectors. This framework must continuously adapt to our ever-changing world – what is considered a risk, who poses that risk or is affected by its changes. The question is, how do we keep up with it?


The second thing being questioned is the ethicality of ESG? Is the label of ESG being used to make money rather than to manage risk? Pioneer of ESG, Clements-Hunt, has spoken out about the misuse of the ESG label. He says that “anybody who uses ESG, sustainability or green purely as a marketing device is heading for trouble”. The finance sector seems to have misused and abused the title of ESG for funds and products that do hardly anything to account for environmental, social, and governance risks. While the EU is a pioneer in sustainable finance regulation, its imperfect rules around sustainable investments have arguably contributed to the inescapable greenwashing of financial products. Despite the good intentions, since the introduction of SFDR (Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation), it has become even more tricky to fish out the greenwashed funds.

In response, Morningstar Inc has tightened its sustainability criteria and consequently stripped the ESG label off about 1,200 funds (~$1trillion in assets under management) after an investigation revealed the funds did not deserve the label.

Yahoo Finance

Alongside the stripping of the ESG labels, states are divesting to maintain ESG ratings. The Church of England cut all Russian investments from its portfolio. Abrdn chief exec Stephen Bird called the country “non-investable” on ethical grounds and set out to exit £5 billion in related assets. In addition, Norway divested a $1.3 trillion sovereign wealth fund from Russia. If divesting from Russia is considered the moral and ethical thing to do, what conditions must meet to re-invest? Online grumblings are critiquing the last-minute divestment of Russian assets. The condition is the absence of war to declare Russia ethically investible – does that fit with the understanding of ESG as a risk management framework? And how far back do you go? China has announced that its relationship with Russia will remain unchanged – does that mean companies should also divest their Chinese assets? This situation is a stark challenge that sustainable investors face in balancing client demand for just and sustainable investment with the desirability of returns from lucrative industries like the defense sector.

Clemens-Hunt anticipates an ESG shakedown – those that have not used the ESG framework properly will face severe consequences. In the coming months, we expect to see greater honesty in markets because where there is lazy analysis and misinformation, there is bound to be a failure. Investors need to be vigilant against greenwashed funds. For ESG to remain a reliable framework, stricter reporting measures must be in place.


The hottest question right now is the place of defense stocks in ESG. Are defense firms and ESG preferences compatible? There are four prominent opinions: no way; yes way; it’s not my job to care; it’s complicated.

The no-way opinion. Some have a strict approach of absolute zero exposure to the industry altogether and do not see it to be compatible with ESG. Before the Ukraine-Russia events, this seemed to be a fairly popular opinion. However, is this all that achievable? Can you have zero exposure if you invest in other industries such as technology and software? Arms trade and war are much more than just artillery; the defense sector taps into a wide range of investment themes- identifying assets that contribute to these activities may not be so straightforward.

The yes-way opinion. Others consider whether Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made defense stocks ESG friendly. In response to the energy crisis, the financial industry and media have called for oil and gas to be rehabilitated, and others have put the defense sector into the equation. Is supplying weapons to an invaded country following an unprovoked war a social good? You could say that providing defense materials to Ukraine is a humanitarian cause, but the problem is that most defense companies don’t just serve the “good guys”. They serve dictators, armed nations, underdogs, invaded, and more. It is a sector that both maintains peace and causes irreparable harm. Is the response to omit defense funds altogether from your portfolio? Or invest knowing that some will go to good causes, but some may go to bad? Initially, it’s up to the portfolio managers whether they want to provide this option. Second, it’s up to the investors to decide where they sit with the issue. As summarized by the Financial Times, having a static framework will not work. There are good and bad in most companies and industries.

It’s not my job to care. Unsurprisingly there are still some people that don’t engage beyond their work and the impacts their decisions make in the world. Sadly, these people often hold hugely influential positions. As CityWire neatly summarized why defense stocks appear in ESG funds:

“Some of the managers said that, from an ESG angle, defense is necessary to maintain world peace, while others said they are not paid to put morals into an investment strategy.”


Unfortunately, the defense industry thrives off inequality and the disruption of peace. Since the invasion of Ukraine, BAE Systems’ share price has risen by more than 17%. Defense spending is a lucrative investment, especially in the powerhouses of the global economy. In 2022 the U.S. spent £590 billion, China £192 billion, Russia £118 billion, the U.K. £52 billion. We all must take responsibility for the world that we create, whether with our money and actions or other people’s. ESG institutions must train fund managers in economic ethics and social responsibility just like those in the A.I. industry.

It’s complicated. The issue is that defense stocks are a broad category- some companies directly manufacture lethal weapons while others produce goods that don’t involve killing but can be used for civil activities. It is essential to distinguish these differences and that sometimes they are very subtly different. Does a company producing a bolt used for the trigger of a gun have the same ESG rating as the manufacturers of the weapon itself? The arms trade is excluded in many funds; however, the production of non-weapons or non-bespoke products such as bolts, valves, crates, etc., are only avoided in higher-ambition sustainable portfolios. Can ESG and defense firms accommodate each other? Some people suggest a tolerance for conventional weapons where fighter jets and tanks are okay, but cluster bombs and landmines are not. The ultimate solution is transparency – the “document” of think, document, do. Investors should have all the information they need to make informed choices around industries they wish to not invest in, whether the defense industry or others.

At FLIT Invest, we give you the power to curate your investment portfolio according to your values. You can opt for themes like Gender Equality, Clean Water, and Affordable Healthcare and opt out of industries like fossil fuels, military weapons, and civilian arms. Take ownership of your money – where are your dollars going? What initiatives are you supporting? Do your values align with those industries? It’s time to take charge and vote with your dollars for a better future. Sign up to our waitlist now to take the first step.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Latest from our Blog

Take Part in Building a Sustainable Future

Join the waitlist to secure your spot for early access and a chance to win $1,000!

Scroll To Top

Thank You For Your Interest!

Join the waitlist to secure your spot for early access and a chance to win $1,000!

Prior to founding FLIT Invest, Alejandro worked at J.P. Morgan’s Private Bank in New York, where he oversaw and managed investments for ultra-high net worth families. Before J.P. Morgan, he was an investment analyst at Northwestern Mutual, responsible for developing comprehensive financial plans and asset allocation models. Alejandro is a CFA charterholder and former professional soccer player.

Steven is a UX/UI Designer based in Los Angeles, CA. He received his BA from CSULB focusing on graphic design. Steven approaches his projects with a keen eye for design while prioritizing user-friendly solutions. He is passionate about animal welfare, and environmental causes.

Prior to FLIT, Kinga worked at Ericsson as a software developer specializing in data analysis where she developed machine learning models to evaluate the quality of the encrypted media traffic over mobile networks. She is an advocate for promoting a transparent and effective work environment. Kinga values diversity and feels strongly about providing access to education. She has a sweet tooth, loves reading and HIIT training.

This is the Title

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean egestas lectus egestas augue turpis. Vitae adipiscing hac lorem aliquet odio leo, lacus, etiam. Amet praesent fermentum, vestibulum augue sed fames neque, molestie quis. Ullamcorper morbi enim nibh aliquet dolor maecenas. Eget semper sed etiam nibh purus gravida sit libero, ut. Dolor amet, ac accumsan interdum quis.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean egestas lectus egestas augue turpis. Vitae adipiscing hac lorem aliquet odio leo, lacus, etiam. Amet praesent fermentum, vestibulum augue sed fames neque, molestie quis. Ullamcorper morbi enim nibh aliquet dolor maecenas. Eget semper sed etiam nibh purus gravida sit libero, ut. Dolor amet, ac accumsan interdum quis.

Prior to founding FLIT Invest, Richard was an investment banker at ING in London. He advised banks, asset & wealth managers, FinTechs and other financial institutions on mergers & acquisitions, financing and other strategic projects. He is an impact investing enthusiast having advised BlueOrchard – leading global impact investing asset manager – on their sale to Schroders. Richard is a former professional triathlete, vegetarian and nature enthusiast.

Serena is a sales and growth professional. She has experience in rapidly scaling revenues for consumer products through the deployment of marketing campaigns and team strategy development. Serena has a keen eye for identifying and implementing emerging consumer trends that result in better user experiences. She is passionate about criminal justice reform and is a loud voice in the fight for gender and racial equality.

Martin is a Software Architect and Developer whose goal is to make FLIT Invest an application that puts usability and security first. Martin started his career in finance, where he developed an integrated treasury solution for banks and corporations. Then he deep-dived into medical imaging at Siemens Healthcare, where he spent years developing a next-generation radiography system. Martin is an avid traveler and loves cycling, hiking, and skiing.

Zsolt has worked as a Software Engineer in Germany, Scotland, and Hong Kong. His work experience lies predominantly in the FinTech industry, both in startups and well-established companies. Before FLIT Invest, Zsolt was a developer at Asia’s leading wealth management platform in Hong Kong. Alongside FLIT, Zsolt is completing his Master’s Degree in applied mathematics in London. In his free time, he enjoys swimming and reading fiction.

Tina is a UX/UI Designer based in Los Angeles, CA. Her expertise in both Economics and Interactive Design allows her to approach topics from a variety of perspectives in order to create products, assist people, and solve problems. She characterized challenges in a larger scope as an explorer, and she continued to look for solutions that would better human life. In addition to design, Tina is enthusiastic about women’s issues in society and animal welfare in various countries.

Peter is a Mobile Engineer with extensive experience in native iOS and Android app development. He has worked with various Fortune 500 companies across industries including fintech, transportation, human resources, energy, accounting, and pharmaceuticals. Being a lifelong learner he’s always eager to acquire new skills in various topics. He’s enthusiastic about different aspects of finance, and in his free time he enjoys working out.

Nick is a User Researcher based in Los Angeles, CA. After receiving his BA in Psychology, he moved on to receive a certificate in UX/UI from UCLA which set him on the path to understanding users. Nick approaches User Research with an empathetic lens, ensuring that every user’s needs are considered in each step of the process. Nick is passionate about providing sustainable change, and in his free time, he’s looking for another national park to check off the list.

Brian is a self-taught iOS developer based in Los Angeles, CA. Driven by a strong interest in finance and renewable energy, he takes pride in being part of a team that takes huge steps towards a greener future. Prior to joining FLIT, Brian played multiple competitive games such as League of Legends at a top-tier level- applying the same mindset of growth and improvement from gaming to his iOS development. Brian is often playing the piano in his free time and is extremely fascinated by artificial intelligence.

Rob is an impact investing analyst passionate about sustainability and its role in finance. Currently, he is a student at the University at Buffalo (UB), where he is the President of the UB Sustainable Business Association and a Board Member of the UB Equity Research Group. In his free time, you can catch Rob exercising or golfing.

Holly is a BSc Psychology with International Placement graduate from the University of Manchester, UK. She has worked and volunteered in the social care sector for 7 years and whilst at university, established an award-winning student zero-waste shop. She is passionate about social justice and environmental sustainability, and in her spare time volunteers as a Scout Leader and enjoys going for tea and cake with friends.

Jake is an entrepreneur, designer, and biologist passionate about sustainability. Previously, Jake founded VOSTIC, a company that manufactured and distributed a kelp-based replacement for plastic. Jake holds a master’s degree in Design Systems from Pacific Northwest College of Art and a bachelor’s degree in Biology from Lewis & Clark College. On weekends you might find him making music or snowboarding at Mt. Hood.