Rational sustainability （理性可持续）

INTRODUCTION

ESG is under attack from all sides. Opponents object to the incorporation of environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) issues in investment decisions, arguing that it allows fund managers to pursue their own agendas at the expense of client returns. Proposed solutions range from disinvesting from ESG funds to banning ESG outright. In January 2024, Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire introduced a bill to prohibit the state from investing in funds that consider ESG factors; violation would be a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Supporters range from true believers, who view ESG as a sure-fire way to achieve both financial returns and social impact, to opportunists who saw ESG – at least historically – as a means to exploit a bubble. Asset managers launched ESG funds; companies courted capital, customers, and colleagues by touting their ESG credentials; and authors, influencers, and professors reinvented themselves as ESG experts even if they never previously cared for the topic. But both true believers and opportunists are recognizing the shifting sands – the former are ploughing ahead but calling it something different; the latter are reversing course and looking for the next fad. In June 2023, BlackRock's Larry Fink, a previously outspoken ESG supporter, announced that he'd no longer use the ESG term because it had become “weaponized,” but not change his actual stance. A January 2024 Financial Times article noted that just six funds citing ESG factors launched in the second half of 2023, as compared with 55 in the first half.1 On the same day, the Wall Street Journal dubbed ESG “the latest dirty word in Corporate America.”2

ESG正受到来自四面八方的攻击。反对者反对将环境、社会和治理（"ESG"）问题纳入投资决策，认为这允许基金经理以牺牲客户回报为代价来追求自己的议程。提出的解决方案从撤资ESG基金到完全禁止ESG。2024年1月，新罕布什尔州的共和党立法者提出了一项法案，禁止该州投资考虑ESG因素的基金；违反将被视为重罪，可判处最高20年监禁。

支持者从真正的信徒到机会主义者不等，前者将ESG视为实现财务回报和社会影响的可靠方式，后者则至少从历史上看，将ESG视为利用泡沫的手段。资产管理公司推出了ESG基金；公司通过强调其ESG资质来讨好资本、客户和同事；作者、影响者和教授们将自己重塑为ESG专家，即使他们以前从未关心过这个话题。但真正的信徒和机会主义者都认识到了形势的变化——前者在继续前进，但称之为不同的名字；后者则改变方向，寻找下一个潮流。2023年6月，黑石集团的拉里·芬克，一位之前直言不讳的ESG支持者，宣布他不再使用ESG这个术语，因为它已经“武器化”，但并没有改变他的实际立场。2024年1月，《金融时报》的一篇文章指出，与2023年上半年的55个基金相比，下半年只有六个基金引用了ESG因素。同一天，《华尔街日报》将ESG称为“美国企业界最新的污点”。

Alongside the true believers and opportunists lies a third group of supporters. They believe that the practice of integrating some – but not all – ESG factors, can create value, but the term “ESG” has several problems. In a 2023 article entitled “The End of ESG,” I argued that ESG is “extremely important” because it is critical to long-term value and thus should be of interest to anyone, but the term “ESG” implies that it's niche. I also claimed that it is “nothing special” compared to other intangible assets such as productivity, innovation, and culture, but the term “ESG” puts it on a pedestal.3 This is far more than a semantic issue since the term ends up affecting the practice; the “incorporation” of environmental, social, and governance factors sometimes morphs into their “prioritization” or “exclusive consideration.” Some companies allocate capital to initiatives that can be labelled ESG over those that might create more long-term value, or make misguided decisions designed to improve ESG metrics even when they are not material to the business. Some investors buy a stock that satisfies ESG criteria with little regard for its price, or automatically vote against the appointment of a new director if it does not achieve their board diversity target, irrespective of that director's other credentials. Some clients pile into funds marketed as ESG irrespective of their actual performance. On the flipside, ESG skeptics have an allergic reaction to funds labelled “ESG” even when the funds use ESG for purely financial goals.

“The End of ESG” was the first in a series of three 2023 articles I wrote to address the problems with ESG. In that first one, I advocated that the ESG practice become both more mainstream and more nuanced.4 In the second, I argued that the term itself should be scrapped.5 And in the third, I highlighted yet another issue: the tendency of the term “ESG” be replace clear-headed thinking by implying that it's somehow different from mainstream business.6 As a result of this tendency, investors and corporate managers are misled into thinking that the insights from decades of research don't apply and resort to “gut feel” when practicing ESG.

在真正的信徒和机会主义者之间，还有第三组支持者。他们认为，整合一些——但不是全部——ESG因素的做法可以创造价值，但“ESG”这个术语有几个问题。在2023年的一篇文章《ESG的终结》中，我认为ESG“极其重要”，因为它对长期价值至关重要，因此应该引起任何人的兴趣，但“ESG”这个术语意味着它是小众的。我还声称，与其他无形资产如生产力、创新和文化相比，它“没什么特别的”，但“ESG”这个术语却将其置于高台之上。这远不止是一个语义问题，因为术语最终影响实践；环境、社会和治理因素的“整合”有时会变成它们的“优先考虑”或“独家考虑”。一些公司将资本分配给可以贴上ESG标签的计划，而不是那些可能创造更多长期价值的计划，或者做出旨在改善ESG指标的错误决策，即使这些指标对业务并不重要。一些投资者购买满足ESG标准的股份，却很少考虑其价格，或者自动反对新董事的任命，如果没有达到他们的董事会多样性目标，不管该董事的其他资质如何。一些客户涌入被营销为ESG的基金，而不考虑它们实际的表现。另一方面，ESG怀疑者对被标记为“ESG”的基金有过敏反应，即使这些基金出于纯粹的财务目标使用ESG。

《ESG的终结》是我在2023年写的三篇文章中的第一篇，旨在解决ESG的问题。在第一篇文章中，我主张ESG实践应该变得更加主流和微妙。在第二篇中，我认为这个术语本身应该被废弃。在第三篇中，我强调了另一个问题：术语“ESG”倾向于用暗示它与主流商业有所不同来取代清晰的思考。由于这种倾向，投资者和公司经理被误导，认为几十年的研究见解不适用，在实践ESG时诉诸“直觉”。

But if we scrap ESG, what do we replace it with? Retiring the term without changing the practice fails to address the many legitimate concerns about ESG. Abandoning the practice entirely will throw the baby out with the bathwater and lose the many benefits of considering ESG factors in corporate and investment decisions. In “The End of ESG” I suggested that we replace the term with either “long-term value” or “intangible assets,” but neither term is perfect. ESG supporters argue that, even though in theory “long-term value” should lead us to consider any relevant factor, including ESG, in practice we may not, and “ESG” usefully reminds us to do so. “Intangible assets” has the virtue of directing us to look beyond tangible factors to create value, but we may only think to study brand and innovation rather than a company's impact on the environment and communities. A separate issue is that practitioners typically consider intangible assets only for financial reasons, but ESG may be pursued for social objectives.

This article proposes the term and practice of “Rational Sustainability” as an alternative to ESG. “Sustainability” refers to the goal: creating sustainable, long-term value, which is relevant to all job functions and political beliefs. It considers all factors that create value, regardless of whether they fall under an ESG label, and deprioritizes immaterial factors even if they can be called ESG. “Rational” refers to the approach: it recognizes diminishing returns and trade-offs; it is based on evidence and analysis; it questions many widespread sustainability conventions and practices rather than following the herd; and it guards against being caught up in irrational sustainability bubbles.7

Rational Sustainability is not about putting old wine in new bottles; it is about a fundamental shift in the way sustainability is practiced, not just labelled. It has ten features, the first five focusing on “sustainability” and the second five on “rational”:

1. Rational Sustainability is About Value Creation, not Politics.

2. Rational Sustainability is About Outcomes, not Labels.

3. Rational Sustainability is Intrinsic, not Instrumental.

4. Rational Sustainability is Core, not Peripheral.

5. Rational Sustainability is Enabling, not Prescriptive.

6. Rational Sustainability Builds on Evidence and Analysis.

7. Rational Sustainability Recognizes Diminishing Returns and Trade-Offs.

8. Rational Sustainability Sets Boundaries.

9. Rational Sustainability Guards Against Irrationality.

10. Rational Sustainability Challenges and Questions.

I now go through these 10 features in turn.

但如果我们放弃ESG，我们用什么来替代它呢？不改变实践而退休术语无法解决关于ESG的许多合理担忧。完全放弃实践将把婴儿和洗澡水一起倒掉，失去在公司和投资决策中考虑ESG因素的许多好处。在《ESG的终结》中，我建议我们用“长期价值”或“无形资产”来替代这个术语，但这两个术语都不是完美的。ESG支持者认为，尽管理论上“长期价值”应该引导我们考虑任何相关因素，包括ESG，但在实践中我们可能不会，而“ESG”有用地提醒我们这样做。“无形资产”的优点在于引导我们超越有形因素来创造价值，但我们可能只会想到研究品牌和创新，而不是公司对环境和社区的影响。另一个问题是，实践者通常只出于财务原因考虑无形资产，但ESG可能出于社会目标而被追求。

本文提出了“理性可持续性”这一术语和实践作为ESG的替代品。“可持续性”指的是目标：创造可持续的长期价值，这与所有工作职能和政治信仰都相关。它考虑了所有创造价值的因素，无论它们是否属于ESG标签，并将不重要的因素置于次要地位，即使它们可以被称为ESG。“理性”指的是方法：它认识到收益递减和权衡；它基于证据和分析；它质疑许多普遍的可持续性惯例和实践，而不是随波逐流；它防止被卷入非理性的可持续性泡沫。

理性可持续性不是把旧酒装进新瓶；它是可持续性实践方式的根本转变，而不仅仅是标签。它有十个特点，前五个侧重于“可持续性”，后五个侧重于“理性”：

1. 理性可持续性是关于价值创造，而不是政治。

2. 理性可持续性是关于结果，而不是标签。

3. 理性可持续性是内在的，而不是工具性的。

4. 理性可持续性是核心的，而不是边缘的。

5. 理性可持续性是使能的，而不是规定性的。

6. 理性可持续性建立在证据和分析之上。

7. 理性可持续性认识到收益递减和权衡。

8. 理性可持续性设定界限。

9. 理性可持续性防范非理性。

10. 理性可持续性挑战和质疑。

我现在依次介绍这十个特点。

RATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY

Principle 1. Rational sustainability is about value creation, not politics

The goal of Rational Sustainability is to create sustainable – that is, long-term – value. Creating sustainable profits, companies, economies, and societies should be of interest to everyone, irrespective of their job title, their political persuasion, or their age. In contrast, ESG is widely seen as being of interest only to ESG executives, those on the left, and the young. It is surprising that some Republicans wish to ban ESG on the grounds that they are the party of big business, when considering environmental, social and governance factors can help companies become more successful, more profitable, and more innovative.

ESG, at its core, is the expansion of an investor's information set to incorporate environmental, social, and governance factors. Increasing information should never make an investor worse off, as it can be discarded if it has no value.8 It is true that ESG is sometimes used to pursue different objectives, such as ticking ESG boxes as Principle #2 will discuss. However, ESG can instead be used to pursue the same objective (value creation) in a more informed manner. There should be no controversy about investors using more information.

In my second 2023 article, “Applying Economics – Not Gut Feel – To ESG,” I argued that the term “ESG” has become so politicized that it prevents clear-headed thinking; as a result, we sometimes need to remove it from a sentence and evaluate what remains in order to make logical assessments. Some critics argue that considering ESG risks is inconsistent with fiduciary duty, but this is illogical since considering risks is an essential part of fiduciary duty. Such politicization is unlikely to be the case with sustainability, because “sustainable” simply means “long-term.” Lawmakers are unlikely to seek to punish the consideration of sustainability risks with 20 years in prison, and are even less likely to ban the consideration of long-term risks or rationality.

In my book Grow the Pie,9 I argued that the term “sustainable” is so uncontroversial that it is somewhat bland; almost all companies seek to be sustainable.10 I wrote that “a stakeholder-focused company is often described as ‘sustainable,’ but ‘sustainable’ simply means ‘long-term.’ ESV [Enlightened Shareholder Value, the pursuit of purely financial goals] could be called ‘sustainable’ as it also takes a long-term approach, albeit to maximize profits rather than social value. We'll thus not use ‘sustainable’ in this book.”

But I wrote all that before the recent politicization of ESG, and I've had to update my view. Advocates and critics have become so caught up in cheerleading and criticizing ESG, or scoring points against the other side, that they've lost sight of the shared goal – to create long-term value. Today's environment calls for a bland term that goes back to basics.

原则1. 理性可持续性关乎价值创造，而非政治

理性可持续性的目标是创造可持续的——即长期——价值。创造可持续的利润、公司、经济和社会，应该对每个人感兴趣，无论他们的职位、政治倾向或年龄。相比之下，ESG普遍被视为只对ESG高管、左翼人士和年轻人感兴趣。令人惊讶的是，一些共和党人希望以大企业党的名义禁止ESG，而考虑环境、社会和治理因素实际上可以帮助公司变得更成功、更有利可图、更有创新性。

ESG的核心是扩大投资者的信息集，以纳入环境、社会和治理因素。增加信息量绝不应该使投资者的处境变糟，因为如果它没有价值，可以被丢弃。ESG有时确实被用来追求不同的目标，比如原则#2将讨论的勾选ESG框框。然而，ESG也可以被用来以更明智的方式追求相同的目标（价值创造）。投资者使用更多信息不应该有任何争议。

在我的2023年第二篇文章《将经济学——而非直觉——应用于ESG》中，我主张“ESG”这个术语已经如此政治化，以至于它阻碍了清晰的思考；结果，我们有时需要将其从句子中移除，以评估剩余的内容，以便进行逻辑评估。一些批评者认为，考虑ESG风险与受托责任不一致，但这是不合逻辑的，因为考虑风险是受托责任的重要组成部分。这种政治化不太可能与可持续性有关，因为“可持续的”简单地意味着“长期的”。立法者不太可能寻求以20年监禁来惩罚考虑可持续性风险，更不可能禁止考虑长期风险或合理性。

在我的书《增长蛋糕》中，我主张“可持续的”这个术语如此无争议，以至于它有些乏味；几乎所有公司都寻求可持续性。我写道，“以利益相关者为中心的公司通常被描述为‘可持续的’，但‘可持续的’简单地意味着‘长期的’。ESV[开明股东价值，追求纯粹的财务目标]也可以被称为‘可持续的’，因为它也采取了长期的方法，尽管是为了最大化利润而不是社会价值。因此，我们将不在这本书中使用‘可持续的’。”

但我在ESG最近政治化之前写了所有这些，我不得不更新我的观点。支持者和批评者如此陷入于为ESG加油和批评ESG，或对另一方得分，以至于他们忽视了共同的目标——创造长期价值。今天的环境需要一个回归基础的乏味术语。

Principle 2. Rational sustainability is about outcomes, not labels

The current practice of ESG gives special status to something just because it can be called ESG. ESG funds attract inflows even if not justified by performance; business schools boost their league table ranking by reporting more hours of ESG teaching; some investors, employees and customers put more weight on a company's ESG claims than delivering great returns, being a great place to work, or offering great products.

Certain ESG advocates argue that the label should be expanded so that more activities can get credit. Some enlarge it to “EESG,” with an extra E for Employees as they are too important to be considered a subset of S;11 others argue that any extra E should stand for Equity.12 When I was a panelist at an ESG conference, an audience member questioned why we were using such an outdated term and advocated BESG given the importance of biodiversity. Companies may end up in an arms’ race to add letters and move to BEEESG, just as some organizations focus more on expanding LGBT to LGBTQIA2S+ rather than actually being inclusive.

Such labeling can mask the lack of action. In a recent working paper, three economists calculate that, despite the supposed surge of ESG investing, ESG-related portfolio tilts represented only 6% of the investment industry's total assets in 2021.13 A 2005 Journal of Finance article found that, when a mutual fund changes its name to reflect a current “hot” style, it enjoyed 28% extra inflows despite no improvement in performance and irrespective of whether its holdings match its new name.14

Rational Sustainability is concerned with outcomes, not labels. The goal of sustainability is to create long-term value; a fund that adds “ESG” to its name without changing its holdings or engagement approach is not investing more sustainably. A fund that adds ESG to its name and changes its holdings is also not investing more sustainably if those actions do not enhance long-term returns.15

Rational Sustainability also both widens and focuses our perspective. It widens our perspective by stressing the need to consider any factor that creates sustainable value, even if it does not fall under an ESG label – such as productivity, innovation and culture. It focuses our perspective by cautioning against pursuing a factor simply because it falls under the ESG umbrella, if it does not create sustainable value. Yet Rational Sustainability may be superior to “long-term value”, as the inclusion of “sustainability” highlights the need to consider societal factors that may have otherwise been overlooked.

原则2. 理性可持续性关乎结果，而非标签

当前的ESG实践给予某些事物特殊地位，仅仅因为它可以被称为ESG。即使没有表现证明，ESG基金也会吸引资金流入；商学院通过报告更多的ESG教学小时数来提高其排名；一些投资者、员工和客户对公司的ESG主张的重视超过了提供出色的回报、成为一个伟大的工作场所或提供出色的产品。

某些ESG倡导者认为应该扩大这个标签，以便更多的活动可以获得信用。有些人将其扩大到“EESG”，额外的E代表员工，因为他们太重要了，不能被视为S的一个子集；其他人认为任何额外的E应该代表公平。当我在一个ESG会议上作为小组成员时，一位观众质疑我们为什么要使用这样一个过时的术语，并主张鉴于生物多样性的重要性，应该使用BESG。公司最终可能会陷入一场增加字母的军备竞赛，转向BEEESG，就像一些组织更关注将LGBT扩展到LGBTQIA2S+而不是真正包容一样。

这种标签可能掩盖了缺乏行动。在最近的一篇工作论文中，三位经济学家计算出，尽管ESG投资似乎激增，但与ESG相关的投资组合倾向在2021年仅占整个投资行业总资产的6%。2005年《金融学杂志》的一篇文章发现，当一个共同基金改变其名称以反映当前的“热门”风格时，尽管没有表现提升，也不管其持有的资产是否符合其新名称，它仍然享受了28%的额外资金流入。

理性可持续性关注结果，而非标签。可持续性的目标是创造长期价值；一个在其名称中添加“ESG”但没有改变其持有或参与方式的基金，并没有更可持续地投资。如果一个基金在其名称中添加ESG并改变其持有，但这些行动没有增强长期回报，那么它也没有更可持续地投资。

理性可持续性也拓宽和集中了我们的视野。它通过强调需要考虑任何创造可持续价值的因素，即使它不属于ESG标签——例如生产力、创新和文化——来拓宽我们的视野。它通过警告我们不要仅仅因为一个因素属于ESG范畴就追求它，如果它没有创造可持续价值，来集中我们的视野。然而，理性可持续性可能优于“长期价值”，因为“可持续性”的包含突出了需要考虑可能被忽视的社会因素的必要性。

Principle 3. Rational sustainability is intrinsic, not instrumental

Why is there such a focus on labels? One reason is that there are instrumental benefits from being called ESG – funds enjoy inflows and companies attract customers. What matters is not so much doing ESG but being seen to do so.

Companies should instead ask themselves: “If you couldn't tell anyone you were doing it, would you still do it?” The answer might be “No” for many ESG initiatives, since their only benefit is instrumental. In contrast, a word that is often paired with “sustain” is “self”; we have self-sustaining organizations, ecosystems, populations, and organisms. Sustainability is pursued for intrinsic reasons – that is, because it's good for you. It allows organizations, ecosystems, populations, and organisms to thrive for decades, even centuries.

An instrumental approach to ESG undermines one of its key rationales. In theory, there should be no need for the ESG acronym to have ever been coined. Executives should know to invest in anything – including ESG – that ultimately creates long-term value, just as they'd improve a company's productivity, innovation, and culture, even though there's no PIC acronym. However, one rationale for ESG is that the financial benefits of ESG (unlike PIC) are hard to predict, no matter how far-sighted the executive. An explicit ESG objective could encourage an executive to make an investment because of its ESG benefits, and those benefits ultimately manifest in financial returns. But because these returns were difficult to forecast, financial considerations alone might not have justified the investment.16 For example, Vodafone launched the mobile money service M-Pesa in 2007 for the social return from improving financial inclusion in Kenya, but was later able to turn this into a financial return by charging a small percentage of every transaction.

If instead ESG is pursued for instrumental reasons, this narrows the freedom that ESG provides. M-Pesa does not improve any of the common ESG metrics that companies are scored on, such as carbon emissions, water usage, CEO-to-worker pay ratio, or gender diversity. It would have never been sanctioned under an instrumental approach to ESG. Sustainability frees a company to create long-term value, irrespective of whether it will get a gold star for doing so.

原则3. 理性可持续性是内在的，而非工具性的

为什么如此关注标签？一个原因是被称为ESG会带来工具性好处——基金享受资金流入，公司吸引客户。重要的不是真正做ESG，而是被看到在做。

公司应该自问：“如果你不能告诉任何人你在做这件事，你还会做吗？”对于许多ESG举措来说，答案可能是“不”，因为它们唯一的好处是工具性的。相比之下，“sustain”这个词经常与“self”搭配使用；我们有自给自足的组织、生态系统、人口和有机体。可持续性是出于内在原因而被追求的——也就是说，因为它对你有好处。它使组织、生态系统、人口和有机体能够繁荣几十年，甚至几个世纪。

以工具性方式对待ESG破坏了其关键理由之一。理论上，本不需要创造ESG这个缩写。高管应该知道投资任何最终创造长期价值的事物——包括ESG——就像他们会提高公司的生产力、创新和文化一样，尽管没有PIC这个缩写。然而，ESG的一个理由是，与PIC不同，ESG的财务收益很难预测，无论高管多么有远见。一个明确的ESG目标可能会鼓励高管因为其ESG好处而进行投资，而这些好处最终会体现在财务回报上。但因为这些回报很难预测，仅凭财务考虑可能不足以证明投资的合理性。例如，沃达丰在2007年推出了移动支付服务M-Pesa，目的是从提高肯尼亚金融包容性的社会回报中获益，但后来能够通过对每一笔交易收取一小部分费用，将其转化为财务回报。

如果ESG是出于工具性原因而被追求，这将限制了ESG所提供的自由。M-Pesa并没有改善公司被评分的常见ESG指标，如碳排放、用水、CEO与工人薪酬比率或性别多样性。在工具性ESG方法下，它永远不会被批准。可持续性释放了公司创造长期价值的能力，无论是否会因此获得金牌。

Principle 4. Rational sustainability is core, not peripheral

Generating long-term, sustainable value is widely accepted as being the core function of business. Finance 101 teaches us that shareholder value is the present value of all future cash flows; any business decision should be evaluated by its long-term consequences. Sustainability is thus the responsibility of every executive within a company, irrespective of your job title.

In contrast, ESG is often viewed as a peripheral cost center. In some asset management firms, the investment team focuses on forecasting long-term cash flows; ESG is a side analysis done by a separate team so that they can tell clients they are “doing ESG.” They then hire “ESG integration” specialists to force fund managers to have at least a cursory glance at the ESG analysis rather than reaching for the bin. Sustainability recognizes the criticality of analyzing a company's impact on society, because many of those impacts will ultimately feedback and affect its profits. The analysis may still be conducted by a separate department given its specialist nature, and there may still be integration professionals given the expertise required, but such analyses are eagerly welcomed and would still be even if the fund managers could not tell their clients.

A word often used interchangeably with “sustainability” and “ESG” is “purpose,” which I advocated in Grow the Pie. I continue to strongly believe in the power of purpose to generate financial and social value. However, at least as commonly practiced, “purpose” has been reduced to a slogan; the branding team comes up with a snappy-sounding purpose that has little effect on a company's decisions. Fund manager Terry Smith famously criticized Unilever for coming up with a “purpose” for mayonnaise when it is nothing more highbrow than salads and sandwiches. Ben & Jerry's claims that “we believe that ice cream can change the world” but it is unclear whether executives truly believe this and, if they did, how it would affect any corporate decision. If so, purpose has no purpose.

原则4. 理性可持续性是核心的，而非边缘的

创造长期、可持续的价值被广泛接受为企业的核心职能。金融101教导我们，股东价值是所有未来现金流的现值；任何商业决策都应根据其长期后果进行评估。因此，可持续性是公司内每位高管的责任，无论您的职位是什么。

相比之下，ESG通常被视为一个边缘成本中心。在一些资产管理公司中，投资团队专注于预测长期现金流；ESG是由一个单独的团队进行的副分析，以便他们可以告诉客户他们正在“做ESG”。然后他们雇佣“ESG整合”专家，迫使基金经理至少粗略地看一眼ESG分析，而不是伸手去扔垃圾。可持续性认识到分析公司对社会的影响的重要性，因为许多这些影响最终会反馈并影响其利润。分析可能仍然由一个单独的部门进行，考虑到其专业性质，也可能仍然有整合专业人士，考虑到所需的专业知识，但这样的分析是受欢迎的，即使基金经理不能告诉他们的客户。

“目的”这个词经常与“可持续性”和“ESG”互换使用，我在《增长蛋糕》中提倡过。我继续坚信目的在创造财务和社会价值方面的力量。然而，至少在通常的做法中，“目的”已经被简化为一个口号；品牌团队想出了一个听起来很响亮的目的，但对公司的决策几乎没有影响。基金经理特里·史密斯（Terry Smith）曾著名地批评联合利华（Unilever）为蛋黄酱想出了一个“目的”，当它不过是用于沙拉和三明治时，并没有什么高深之处。本杰里（Ben & Jerry's）声称“我们相信冰淇淋可以改变世界”，但不清楚高管们是否真的相信这一点，如果他们相信，这将如何影响任何公司决策。如果是这样，那么目的就没有目的。

Principle 5. Rational sustainability is enabling, not prescriptive

I've referred to the goal of sustainability as “long-term value,” but been deliberately vague about what this value is. Is it purely financial value, or does it include social value? And if it does, which societal objectives, and how much financial value should you be willing to sacrifice for them?

In “The End of ESG,” I argued that ESG investing is often just investing, because an investor should consider all factors relevant for generating long-term returns, both ESG and non-ESG. However, I acknowledged that one way in which ESG investing is not investing is that investors may have non-financial objectives, such as reducing negative externalities and creating positive externalities. Rational Sustainability allows for such non-financial goals. The value that it creates can be a mix of financial and social value, and thus it fully accommodates investors’ willingness to sacrifice the former for the latter. However, Rational Sustainability differs from ESG in three ways.

First, any societal objectives are pursued in a sustainable way: the goal is a mix of long-term financial and social value. Targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) by hiring minorities irrespective of their ability may improve a company's short-term DEI statistics, but backfire in the long term as those hires do not succeed and leave. The company itself suffers worse performance, hindering its ability to hire in the future. Thus, workers also lose out.

Second, any societal objectives are pursued in a rational way. This involves recognizing diminishing returns and trade-offs, as Principle #7 will discuss in more detail. These trade-offs include trade-offs with financial returns. It can still be entirely rational to operate in the zone of diminishing – even negative – financial returns because financial returns are not investors’ only objective. However, investors should be aware of the trade-offs so that they understand the financial sacrifice that they are making.17 The trade-offs also include those with other societal returns, such as the fact that rapid decarbonization may lead to a significant loss of jobs. Rationality also involves using evidence to inform the strategies that are most effective in creating social returns, rather than (for example) divesting from all emitting companies because gut feel suggests that it would be effective.18

Third, Rational Sustainability emphasizes the need to be explicit about any non-financial objectives. To achieve long-term goals, you need to state what those goals are. Internally, it clarifies what employees should aim for; externally, it brings transparency and allows customers to go somewhere else if they're not aligned. A fund may choose to sacrifice financial returns to address climate change, but it needs to make this sacrifice clear in its prospectus rather than claiming that everything's a win-win. Otherwise, if the fund ends up underperforming, clients may withdraw their money as they were promised outperformance.

The above consideration also guards against the risk of becoming an “ESG Chameleon.” Some ESG advocates promote ESG based on claims that ESG improves financial performance, often backed up by flimsy research parading correlations between ESG and stock returns. When this research has subsequently been shown to be flawed due to data mining, omitted variables, or sample selection issues, they sometimes respond “well that was never the motive for ESG anyway; it was to save the world.” When evidence is presented suggesting that ESG's social and environmental impact is limited,19 they sometimes respond, “but the reason for ESG is to invest in companies that reflect our values.” Rational Sustainability highlights the importance of being clear about one's objective.20

The permissiveness of Rational Sustainability highlights that the definition of “long-term value” is an area about which there can be legitimate disagreement between Republicans and Democrats, and that some politicization cannot be avoided. Republicans might define long-term value as exclusively financial value, while Democrats may argue that it should also include social value. There may also be legitimate disagreement about which social objectives should be included and their relative importance. However, there should be less disagreement that, whatever objectives are chosen, they should be pursued in a rational and sustainable manner.

原则5. 理性可持续性是使能的，而非规定性的

我将可持续性的目标称为“长期价值”，但对于这个价值是什么却故意含糊其辞。它仅仅是财务价值，还是也包括社会价值？如果包括，那么是哪些社会目标，你又愿意为了它们牺牲多少财务价值？

在《ESG的终结》中，我主张ESG投资通常只是投资，因为投资者应该考虑所有与产生长期回报相关的因素，无论是ESG还是非ESG。然而，我承认ESG投资与普通投资的一个不同之处在于，投资者可能有非财务目标，例如减少负面外部性和创造正面外部性。理性可持续性允许有这样的非财务目标。它创造的价值可以是财务和社会价值的混合，因此它完全适应了投资者愿意为了后者牺牲前者的意愿。然而，理性可持续性与ESG在三个方面有所不同。

首先，任何社会目标都以可持续的方式追求：目标是长期财务和社会价值的混合。通过雇佣少数民族来实现多样性、公平性和包容性（DEI），如果不考虑他们的能力，可能会提高公司的短期DEI统计数据，但长期来看可能会适得其反，因为这些雇员没有成功并离开。公司本身的业绩更差，妨碍了其未来的招聘能力。因此，员工也吃亏。

其次，任何社会目标都以理性的方式追求。这包括认识到收益递减和权衡，原则#7将更详细地讨论这一点。这些权衡包括与财务回报的权衡。由于财务回报并非投资者唯一的目标，因此在收益递减甚至负面的财务回报区域运营仍然完全可以是理性的。然而，投资者应该意识到这些权衡，以便他们了解自己正在做出的财务牺牲。权衡还包括与其他社会回报的权衡，例如，快速脱碳可能导致大量工作岗位的丧失。理性还涉及使用证据来指导最有效的策略，以创造社会回报，而不是（例如）仅仅因为直觉认为这样做有效就从所有排放公司撤资。

第三，理性可持续性强调需要明确任何非财务目标。为了实现长期目标，你需要明确这些目标是什么。在内部，它明确了员工应该追求什么；在外部，它带来了透明度，并允许客户如果不对齐就可以去其他地方。一个基金可能选择为了解决气候变化而牺牲财务回报，但它需要在招股说明书中明确这种牺牲，而不是声称一切都是双赢的。否则，如果基金最终表现不佳，客户可能会撤回他们的资金，因为他们被承诺了超额表现。

上述考虑还可以防止成为“ESG变色龙”的风险。一些ESG倡导者基于ESG提高财务绩效的说法来推广ESG，通常是由薄弱的研究支持的，这些研究声称ESG和股票回报之间存在相关性。当这些研究随后因数据挖掘、遗漏变量或样本选择问题而被证明有缺陷时，他们有时会回应“反正那从来不是ESG的动机；而是拯救世界。”当有证据表明ESG的社会和环境影响有限时，他们有时会回应，“但是ESG的原因是投资那些反映我们价值观的公司。”理性可持续性强调了明确自己的目标的重要性。

理性可持续性宽容性突显了“长期价值”的定义是一个可以在共和党人和民主党人之间引起合法分歧的领域，一些政治化是无法避免的。共和党人可能将长期价值定义为纯粹的财务价值，而民主党人可能会认为它也应该包括社会价值。关于应该包括哪些社会目标以及它们的相对重要性，也可能存在合法的分歧。然而，应该较少有分歧的是，无论选择什么目标，都应该以理性和可持续的方式追求。

Principle 6. Rational sustainability builds on evidence and analysis

The next five principles highlight the key features of “rational” sustainability. In theory, there should be no need for such emphasis because people should always act rationally – just as in theory there should be no need to emphasize sustainability since people should always think long-term. However, there is widespread evidence of irrationality in many other contexts,21 and irrationality is likely even more severe for sustainability given confirmation bias. Sustainability advocates may believe that sustainability is always beneficial; detractors may think it is always harmful.

One important example of irrationality is in the interpretation of data and evidence. A huge number of sustainability studies abound, often written by commercial organizations with limited research credentials and whose goal is a PR boost rather than the truth. They get it by claiming what people want to hear – that sustainability always improves performance. Often, these studies are lapped up uncritically by readers who like the findings even if the analysis is weak. In my 2024 book, May Contain Lies,22 I highlight the numerous ways in which people fall for fluff: headlines are written about a study that does not exist; a study exists but doesn't conduct any analysis; the authors claim the opposite of what their analysis finds; the analysis doesn't actually measure sustainability or performance; the authors conducted dozens of analyses and only reported the ones that work; and the authors trumpet causation when there is only a correlation.

These errors appear so basic that it seems implausible that anyone would fall for them – how could you believe a claim when the results show the opposite? – but rationality goes out of the window when confirmation bias is at play. In contrast, studies uncovering inconvenient truths are dismissed out of hand, as “one study out of many” or as being politically motivated.

A rational look at the data finds that the evidence is much more nuanced than either side commonly claims. Some ESG factors are associated with higher long-term financial returns, such as corporate governance,23 employee satisfaction,24 and customer satisfaction.25 However, even those results may not be universal: corporate governance is uncorrelated with returns in competitive industries,26 employee satisfaction does not lead to outperformance in countries with heavily regulated labor markets,27 and ESG only generates high returns in crisis periods.28

In contrast, some of the factors that ESG advocates are particularly passionate about may have no or a negative correlation with returns. Companies that emit more carbon enjoy higher returns29 and these higher returns arise from outperformance, not risk;30 moreover, they are not robust to different methodologies.31 Multiple McKinsey studies claim that diversity is strongly correlated with company performance but they suffer from elementary flaws;32 a review of the highest-quality academic evidence finds a zero or negative link between diversity and company performance.33

Rather than being piqued by negative findings and wanting to ignore or attract them, a rational response is to use them to practice sustainability more effectively. Knowing that certain factors are not linked to financial performance allows you to focus on the ones that are (if your goal is solely, or predominantly, financial returns). Alternatively, it may prompt you to go deeper and analyze more complex measures of sustainability than the ones featured in the study. The lack of a link between demographic diversity and performance need not imply that DEI has no value, only that demographic diversity is a blunt measure of DEI. In a 2023 working paper, my coauthors and I find that a holistic measure of DEI, which incorporates equity and inclusion, is positively linked to financial performance.34

In addition to a careful approach to the data, Rational Sustainability involves a careful approach to analysis and logic. Sometimes, caution goes out of the window when considering ESG, viewing it as a “magic word” that defies the need to conduct analysis – for example, the belief that a fund should always boycott fossil fuels due to their ESG risks, and always invest in electric cars due to their ESG opportunities.35 Rational Sustainability involves treating ESG like any other factor. Just as a rational reader applies the same scrutiny to an ESG study as to any other study, a rational investor compares an ESG stock to its price just like any other stock. A company could be risky, but the risks could be more than discounted; it could be attractive but overpriced due to a bubble.

One potential objection to the concept of “rational” sustainability is that the qualification is unnecessary because there is no such thing as “irrational” sustainability. Sustainability – concern for people and the planet – is a “good thing,” so it cannot possibly be irrational. Such an objection conflates the goal with the approach. Even if the goal is laudable, it can be pursued in either rational or irrational ways. Dieting, exercise, and hard work are generally seen as good things, but you can have irrational dieting, irrational exercise, and irrational hard work. ESG and sustainability are not “magic words” that defy the laws of gravity, or the laws of economics, and are immune to irrationality.

A second potential objection is that it is unclear how to define “rational.” Aditya may think it's rational to pursue only financial returns, and Beatriz to seek a mixture of financial and social returns. However, this again conflates the goal with the approach. It is entirely reasonable to have non-standard objectives if they are pursued in rational ways. This has long been recognized in the behavioral economics literature. For example, in their 2001 model of prospect theory, Nicholas Barberis, Ming Huang, and Tano Santos note that “While our preferences are nonstandard, this does not mean that they are irrational in any sense: it is not irrational for people to get utility from sources other than consumption, nor is it irrational for them to anticipate these feelings when making decisions.”36

But how do we define being “pursued in rational ways?” Again, the behavioral economics literature offers guidance: taking all information into account and updating your beliefs according to Bayes’ Rule. Irrationality may come in many forms, such as confirmation bias: rejecting information that contradicts your beliefs, and overweighting information that confirms them. Rationality does not mean that there is only one way to interpret information. There may be legitimate disagreement as to whether an ESG factor will increase or decrease returns, particularly if no research has been conducted on the topic. Where information is ambiguous, rationality means treating it as ambiguous and allowing for differences in opinion, rather than interpreting it in a way that confirms your beliefs about sustainability.

原则6. 理性可持续性建立在证据和分析之上

接下来的五个原则强调了“理性”可持续性的关键特征。从理论上讲，不应该需要这样强调，因为人们应该总是理性行事——就像从理论上讲不应该需要强调可持续性，因为人们应该总是考虑长期。然而，有大量证据表明在许多其他背景下存在非理性行为，鉴于确认偏误，非理性在可持续性方面可能更加严重。

非理性的一个重要例子是在数据和证据的解释上。大量可持续性研究泛滥成灾，通常由研究资质有限的商业组织撰写，他们的目标是公关提升而不是真相。他们通过声称人们想听的内容——可持续性总是能提高绩效——来获得它。通常，这些研究被喜欢这些发现的读者不加批判地接受，即使分析很弱。在我的2024年的书《可能包含谎言》中，我强调了人们上当受骗的众多方式：关于不存在的研究的头条新闻；存在研究但没有进行任何分析；作者声称与他们的分析发现相反的内容；分析实际上没有测量可持续性或绩效；作者进行了数十次分析，只报告了有效的那些；作者在只有相关性的情况下大肆宣扬因果关系。

这些错误看起来如此基础，以至于似乎不可思议的是有人会上当受骗——当结果显示相反时，你怎么可能相信一个说法？——但是当确认偏误起作用时，理性就飞出了窗外。相比之下，揭示不便真相的研究被立即驳回，作为“众多研究之一”或被视为政治动机。

理性地看待数据发现，证据比双方通常声称的要微妙得多。一些ESG因素与更高的长期财务回报相关，例如公司治理、员工满意度和客户满意度。然而，即使这些结果也可能不是普遍的：在竞争性行业中，公司治理与回报无关，员工满意度在劳动市场严格管制的国家中不会导致超额表现，ESG只在危机时期产生高回报。

相比之下，ESG倡导者特别热衷的一些因素可能与回报无关或呈负相关。排放更多碳的公司享有更高的回报，这些更高的回报来自于超额表现，而不是风险；此外，它们对不同方法论也不稳健。麦肯锡的多项研究声称多样性与公司绩效强烈相关，但它们存在基本缺陷；对最高质量的学术证据的回顾发现多样性与公司绩效之间为零或负相关。

与其对负面发现感到恼怒并想要忽视或吸引它们，理性的反应是利用它们更有效地实践可持续性。知道某些因素与财务绩效无关，可以让你专注于那些有关的（如果你的目标纯粹或主要是财务回报）。或者，它可能会促使你深入分析比研究中提到的更复杂的可持续性指标。人口多样性与绩效之间缺乏联系，并不意味着DEI没有价值，只是人口多样性是DEI的一个粗略衡量标准。在2023年的一篇工作论文中，我的合著者和我发现，一个包含公平和包容的全面DEI衡量标准与财务绩效正相关。

除了对数据的谨慎方法外，理性可持续性还涉及对分析和逻辑的谨慎方法。有时，在考虑ESG时，谨慎会飞出窗外，将其视为一个“神奇词汇”，不需要进行分析——例如，认为一个基金应该总是抵制化石燃料，因为它们的ESG风险，总是投资电动汽车，因为它们的ESG机会。理性可持续性涉及像对待任何其他因素一样对待ESG。就像理性的读者对ESG研究和任何其他研究一样进行同样的审查一样，理性的投资者将ESG股票与其价格进行比较，就像任何其他股票一样。一家公司可能存在风险，但风险可能已经被充分折扣；它可能很有吸引力，但由于泡沫而被高估。

对“理性”可持续性概念的一个潜在反对意见是，这个限定词是不必要的，因为不存在“非理性”的可持续性。可持续性——关心人和地球——是一个“好东西”，所以它不可能是非理性的。这样的反对意见混淆了目标和方法。即使目标值得称赞，也可以以理性或非理性的方式追求。节食、运动和努力工作通常被视为好事，但你可能有非理性的节食、非理性的运动和非理性的努力工作。ESG和可持续性不是“神奇词汇”，它们不违反重力定律或经济定律，对非理性免疫。

第二个潜在反对意见是，如何定义“理性”不清楚。Aditya可能认为只追求财务回报是理性的，而Beatriz寻求财务和社会回报的混合是理性的。然而，这再次混淆了目标和方法。如果以理性的方式追求，拥有非标准目标是完全合理的。这在行为经济学文献中早已得到认可。例如，在他们2001年的前景理论模型中，Nicholas Barberis、Ming Huang和Tano Santos指出：“虽然我们的偏好是非标准的，但这并不意味着它们在任何意义上都是非理性的：人们从消费以外来源获得效用并不非理性，他们在做决策时预期这些感觉也不非理性。”

但我们如何定义以“理性方式”追求？再次，行为经济学文献提供了指导：考虑所有信息，并根据贝叶斯规则更新你的信仰。非理性可能以多种形式出现，例如确认偏误：拒绝与你的信仰相矛盾的信息，过分强调证实它们的信息。理性并不意味着只有一种解释信息的方式。对于ESG因素会增加还是减少回报，可能有合法的分歧，特别是如果没有对该主题进行研究。在信息模糊的情况下，理性意味着将其视为模糊的，并允许意见分歧，而不是以一种证实你对可持续性信仰的方式解释它。

Principle 7. Rational sustainability recognizes diminishing returns and trade-offs

In January 2024, I was discussing sustainable real estate with two investors, Russell Chaplin and Chris Miller-Jones of Europa Capital. They questioned whether a potential investment should always have more green building certifications than fewer or, having bought a building, whether to follow the common industry trend of trying to get as many certifications as possible. They saw the value of sustainability but recognized the diminishing returns to each additional certification, as well as the increasing costs – both in renovating the building to qualify for certification and investing the time and money to get certified. I then described their approach as “Rational Sustainability.”

Irrational sustainability involves pursuing a project, investment, or certification just because it is viewed as sustainable. Even if it actually sustainable and has genuine benefits rather than just ticking a box, there will be costs to it – direct financial costs of making the investment, and indirect costs of time diverted from other activities that create financial or social value. In addition, more is not always better; as with any investment, returns are diminishing and can turn negative.

Rational Sustainability recognizes that sustainability factors are subject to the same laws of gravity as everything else. It encourages us to look at the big picture – rather than getting engrossed with the benefits, to step back and consider the costs. This continues to apply even if our goal is more than financial returns. Estimating the financial cost is necessary to discern whether the additional social payoff is sufficient to outweigh the reduced financial payoff, rather than ploughing straight ahead because social returns are a “good thing.”

原则7. 理性可持续性认识到收益递减和权衡

2024年1月，我与两位投资者，Europa Capital的Russell Chaplin和Chris Miller-Jones讨论可持续房地产。他们质疑是否潜在投资总是应该有比较少的绿色建筑认证更多，或者在购买一栋建筑后，是否应该遵循行业常见的趋势，尽可能获得更多认证。他们看到了可持续性的价值，但也认识到每增加一个认证的收益递减，以及成本的增加——无论是为了符合认证资格而翻新建筑的直接财务成本，还是投入时间和金钱获得认证的间接成本。然后我将他们的方法描述为“理性可持续性”。

非理性的可持续性涉及仅仅因为一个项目、投资或认证被视为可持续而追求它。即使它实际上是可持续的，并且有真正的好处而不仅仅是勾选一个框，它也会有成本——进行投资的直接财务成本，以及从创造财务或社会价值的其他活动中转移出来的时间的间接成本。此外，更多并不总是更好；就像任何投资一样，回报是递减的，并且可能变成负面。

理性可持续性认识到可持续性因素和其他一切一样都受到重力定律的约束。它鼓励我们放眼大局——而不是沉迷于好处，退后一步考虑成本。即使我们的目标不仅仅是财务回报，这一点仍然适用。估计财务成本是必要的，以判断额外的社会回报是否足以抵消减少的财务回报，而不是因为社会回报是一个“好东西”就直接推进。

Principle 8. Rational sustainability sets boundaries

Principle #7 highlighted that, if you consider a given ESG factor, more is not always better. This principle highlights the economic reality that a greater number of ESG factors is not always better.

Irrational sustainability involves trying to tick as many ESG boxes as possible. The more you tick, the higher your ESG rating will be, and the less likely that customers will boycott you for failing to tick their preferred box. Rational Sustainability recognizes that, while a company has responsibilities to society (either for financial or social reasons), there are limits: Apple should not be culpable if its excellence hastens the decline of BlackBerry, nor if its hiring standards prevent low-quality applicants from getting jobs.37 A company is not responsible for addressing all of society's challenges or pursuing all 17 Sustainable Development Goals; that's the role of governments.

Rational Sustainability sets boundaries. It establishes a framework for analyzing what a company's responsibilities should and should not be. This framework in turn guides decisions on how to allocate capital, headcount, and time. A company can then be held accountable for delivering on the responsibilities that it has set out. Without such boundaries, anything goes; it is not clear how an executive should navigate trade-offs, or what investors should hold her accountable for.

In Grow the Pie, I propose two criteria to establish such boundaries.38 One is comparative advantage: a company should focus on those sustainability activities in which it has unique expertise. Vodafone should invest in M-Pesa since it has telecoms expertise; it should not donate money to charity because it has no special ability to evaluate which charities are most worthy or effective.

A second is materiality. If a company's only goal is financial returns, this entails business materiality: a company should prioritize those stakeholders that are most important for its business model. Apple should invest in specialist suppliers such as Corning, which provides the touch-screen glass for its iPhones, but commodity suppliers are less material. If a company's goal includes social returns, this also involves intrinsic materiality: the non-financial objectives its shareholders and stakeholders care about (rather than, for instance, the ones that happen to be in the news).

My criteria are certainly not the only set of legitimate criteria. Companies may choose their own criteria, but some criteria are needed otherwise decisions are arbitrary.

原则8. 理性可持续性设定界限

原则#7强调，如果你考虑一个给定的ESG因素，更多并不总是更好。这一原则强调了经济现实，即更多的ESG因素并不总是更好。

非理性的可持续性涉及尽可能多地勾选ESG框。你勾得越多，你的ESG评级就越高，客户就越不可能因为你没有勾选他们喜欢的框而抵制你。理性可持续性认识到，虽然公司对社会（无论是出于财务还是社会原因）有责任，但是有限的：如果苹果公司的卓越加速了黑莓的衰落，它不应该受到指责，如果它的招聘标准阻止了低质量的申请者获得工作，它也不应该受到指责。一家公司没有责任解决社会的所有挑战或追求所有17个可持续发展目标；那是政府的角色。

理性可持续性设定界限。它建立了一个框架，用于分析公司的职责应该和不应该是哪些。这个框架反过来指导如何分配资本、人手和时间的决定。然后可以根据公司制定的职责对其问责。没有这样的界限，任何事情都有可能发生；不清楚高管应该如何权衡，或者投资者应该让她对什么负责。

在《增长蛋糕》中，我提出了两个标准来建立这样的界限。一个是比较优势：公司应该专注于那些它拥有独特专长的可持续性活动。沃达丰应该投资M-Pesa，因为它拥有电信专业知识；它不应该捐款给慈善机构，因为它没有特别的评估哪些慈善机构最有价值或最有效的能力。

第二个是重要性。如果公司唯一的目标是财务回报，这涉及到商业重要性：公司应该优先考虑对其商业模式最重要的利益相关者。苹果公司应该投资于像康宁这样的专业供应商，后者为其iPhone提供触摸屏玻璃，但商品供应商的重要性较小。如果公司的目标包括社会回报，这也涉及到内在重要性：其股东和利益相关者关心的非财务目标（而不是，例如，恰好在新闻中的目标）。

我的标准当然不是唯一的合法标准集。公司可以选择自己的标准，但是需要一些标准，否则决策就是任意的。

Principle 9. Rational sustainability guards against irrationality

The irrationality that plagues sustainability is not limited to confirmation bias. Another behavioral bias that is particularly relevant for sustainability is herd mentality, where people pile into something because everyone else is doing so. Professors rush to teach courses on ESG irrespective of expertise, companies like Target, Bud Light and Disney raced to embrace liberal issues without thinking about their conservative customers, and investors jump on the latest DEI fad.

One example of the latter is the big market delusion that surrounded electric vehicles (“EVs”) in early 2021.39 Investors were so excited about the sustainability credentials of EVs – their potential to generate financial returns and address climate change – that they bid up the values of EV stocks to nonsensically high levels. Adding up the price of each EV company led to an implausible value for the total EV industry, even under the most optimistic scenario for the uptake of EVs. However, investors forgot this “adding-up constraint” in their mania.

A second irrationality is the “zero-risk bias,” which leads people to seek the complete elimination of a risk, even if its substantial reduction is sufficient. As an everyday example, consumers pay for overpriced extended warranties even if the risk of a breakdown is already small, to reduce it to zero.40 In a sustainability context, many companies have signed up to be “net zero,” perhaps due to the attractiveness of “zero.” However, society as a whole can be net zero as a whole without every company being net zero. Some industries, such as reforestation, will naturally be carbon-negative; for other industries, such as construction, it is impossible to be net zero without the use of offsets, whose validity and effectiveness has been challenged and whose purchase is inconsistent with comparative advantage.41

In addition to guarding against your own irrationality, Rational Sustainability allows investors to exploit market irrationality – selling sustainable companies that are overpriced, or buying sustainable companies that are underpriced because they do not tick ESG boxes. One might question whether it is responsible – sustainable, even – to exploit others’ irrationality. Launching funds with ESG labels to capitalize on people's misbelief that ESG always pays off might be seen as irresponsible.42 This is why I have referred to “market irrationality” rather than “consumer irrationality.” Participants in financial markets who choose to trade individual stocks when they could buy mutual funds should know that they are swimming with sharks. Moreover, exploiting irrationality corrects mispricing, making market prices more accurate signals for corporate decision makers.43 For example, deflating the EV bubble will prevent EV companies from raising cheap equity when the industry is already over-capacity and needs a shake-out; buying underpriced sustainable companies will help the market recognize their value.

原则9. 理性可持续性防范非理性

困扰可持续性的非理性不仅限于确认偏误。对可持续性特别相关的另一种行为偏见是羊群心理，人们因为其他人都在做而纷纷加入。教授们不顾一切地教授ESG课程，不管他们是否专业，像Target、Bud Light和Disney这样的公司在没有考虑他们的保守客户的情况下，急忙拥抱自由问题，投资者则跳上最新的DEI时尚。

2021年初围绕电动汽车（"EV"）的大市场错觉是后者的一个例子。投资者对EV的可持续性资质——它们产生财务回报和解决气候变化的潜力——感到非常兴奋，以至于他们将EV股票的价值推高到了荒谬的水平。将每家EV公司的价格加起来，即使在EV采用最乐观的情况下，整个EV行业的总价值也是不可信的。然而，投资者在狂热中忘记了这个“汇总约束”。

第二种非理性是“零风险偏见”，这导致人们寻求完全消除风险，即使大幅度减少风险就足够了。作为一个日常例子，消费者支付过高的价格购买延长保修，即使故障风险已经很小，也要将其降至零。在可持续性背景下，许多公司已经承诺要实现“净零”，也许是因为“零”的吸引力。然而，即使每个公司都不是净零，整个社会也可以作为一个整体实现净零。一些行业，如再造林，将自然地成为碳负性；对于其他行业，如建筑业，如果不使用抵消，就不可能实现净零，抵消的有效性和有效性已经受到质疑，购买抵消也不符合比较优势。

除了防范自己的非理性外，理性可持续性还允许投资者利用市场的非理性——出售定价过高的可持续公司，或购买因为它们没有勾选ESG框而被低估的可持续公司。有人可能会质疑，利用他人的非理性是否负责任——甚至可持续——是否负责任。启动带有ESG标签的基金，利用人们认为ESG总是有利可图的错误信念，可能被视为不负责任。这就是为什么我提到了“市场非理性”，而不是“消费者非理性”。选择交易个股的金融市场参与者，当他们可以购买共同基金时，应该知道他们是在与鲨鱼一起游泳。此外，利用非理性纠正了定价错误，使市场价格成为企业决策者更准确的信号。例如，消除EV泡沫将防止EV公司在行业已经产能过剩并且需要整合时以低价发行股票；购买被低估的可持续公司将帮助市场认识到它们的价值。

Principle 10. Rational sustainability challenges and questions

Principle #9 highlighted how the herd mentality can lead to market bubbles and crashes. It can similarly distort executives’ decisions by leading to them taking actions indiscriminately, just because everybody else is doing it.

For example, many companies have signed up for net zero without even understanding what “net” or “zero” is. Starting with the former, it is not obvious whether it is appropriate to net off negative emissions, thus treating them as equal to emissions reduction. Moving to the latter, it is unclear how to define zero due to indirect positive effects (manufacturing semiconductors releases greenhouse gases, but semiconductors may be used in solar panels) and indirect negative effects (electric cars may use electricity from fossil fuels). Furthermore, it is not clear whether every company needs to be net zero even if society should be, whether firms have calculated the financial cost of net zero (compared to, say, a 95% reduction in emissions), and whether “net benefit” (which includes environmental and social impacts beyond carbon) is a better target than “net zero.”

Principle #7 highlighted the importance of stepping back and looking at the big picture of a decision – its costs as well as its benefits. Challenging and questioning involves stepping back even further and looking at the big picture of the problem the decision is trying to solve. For example, in 2023 the Financial Conduct Authority, a UK regulator, proposed to regulate the diversity of a company's workforce under the claim that their Consumer Duty is to ensure fair provision of financial services to customers.44 But if this is their goal, then the solution is to regulate directly the fairness of provision of financial services to customers, not the demographic diversity of employees which is very far removed.45 However, given frequent calls to regulate diversity from pressure groups, and the herd mentality of following regulators in other countries, a particular regulator may pounce on doing so without asking what problem it is a solution to, and whether a non-sustainability regulation would solve it more effectively.

原则10. 理性可持续性挑战和质疑

原则#9强调了羊群心理如何导致市场泡沫和崩溃。它同样可能扭曲高管的决策，导致他们不加选择地采取行动，仅仅因为其他人都在这么做。

例如，许多公司在甚至不理解“净”或“零”是什么意思的情况下就承诺要实现净零。从前者开始，显然不清楚是否适合抵消负排放，从而将它们视为等同于减排。转向后者，由于间接正面效应（制造半导体会释放温室气体，但半导体可能被用于太阳能电池板）和间接负面效应（电动汽车可能使用来自化石燃料的电力），定义零并不清楚。此外，即使社会应该是净零，也不清楚每个公司是否都需要实现净零，公司是否计算了实现净零的财务成本（与比如说减少95%的排放相比），以及“净效益”（包括超出碳的环境和社会影响）是否是比“净零”更好的目标。

原则#7强调了退后一步，从更广阔的视角看决策的重要性——它的成本和收益。挑战和质疑涉及进一步退后，从更广阔的视角看决策试图解决的问题。例如，在2023年，英国监管机构金融行为监管局提议在声称其消费者责任是确保公平提供金融服务给客户的情况下，监管公司员工的多样性。但如果这是他们的目标，那么解决方案应该是直接监管公平提供金融服务给客户，而不是员工的人口多样性，后者与目标相去甚远。然而，鉴于来自压力团体的频繁呼吁和跟随其他国家监管机构的羊群心理，一个特定的监管机构可能会在没有询问它是一个解决方案的问题，以及非可持续性监管是否会更有效地解决它的情况下，急于这么做。

CONCLUSION

This article has proposed “Rational Sustainability” as an alternative to ESG – a term and set of practices that started off with much promise and good intentions but has failed to achieve this promise, owing to naïve implementations by true believers, blind opposition by equally zealous adversaries, and exploitation of the ESG movement by opportunists and imposters.

Rational Sustainability is sustainable. Its goal is long-term sustainable value, not political objectives; it includes everything that improves long-term value irrespective of whether it is labelled ESG; it is pursued by companies even if they can't tell anyone they're doing so; it is embraced as a core profit center not resented as a peripheral cost center; and it accommodates different definitions of value.

Rational Sustainability is also rational. Its approach is based on evidence and clear-headed analysis; it recognizes diminishing returns and trade-offs; it sets boundaries rather than thinking that “anything goes”; it guards against your own irrationality and capitalizes on market irrationality; and it challenges and questions rather than follow the herd.

Rational Sustainability has the potential to create long-term value for shareholders and society, fulfilling the promise that ESG failed to.

结论

本文提议“理性可持续性”作为ESG的替代品——一个起初充满希望和良好意图的术语和实践集，但由于真正的信徒天真的实施、同样热心的反对者盲目的反对，以及机会主义者和冒名顶替者对ESG运动的利用，未能实现这一承诺。

理性可持续性是可持续的。其目标是长期的可持续价值，而非政治目标；它包括一切能提升长期价值的事物，无论是否被标记为ESG；公司即使不能告诉任何人他们正在这么做也会追求它；它被视为核心利润中心，而不是被怨恨为边缘成本中心；它适应不同的价值定义。

理性可持续性也是理性的。其方法基于证据和清晰的分析；它认识到收益递减和权衡；它设定界限，而不是认为“什么都行”；它防范自身的非理性，并利用市场的非理性；它挑战和质疑，而不是随波逐流。

理性可持续性有潜力为股东和社会创造长期价值，实现ESG未能实现的承诺。