The Latest Dirty Word in Corporate America: ESG

Many companies no longer utter these three letters: E-S-G.

Following years of simmering investor backlash, political pressure and legal threats over environmental, social and governance efforts, a number of business leaders are now making a conscious effort to avoid the once widely used acronym for such initiatives.

On earnings calls, many chief executives now employ new approaches. Some companies, including Coca-Cola, are rebranding corporate reports and committees, stripping ESG from titles. Advisers are coaching executives on alternative ways to describe their efforts, proposing new terms like “responsible business.” On Wall Street, meanwhile, some firms are closing once-popular ESG funds as interest fades.

The shift in messaging reflects a reality: “ESG is complicated,” said Daryl Brewster, a former Kraft Foods and Nabisco executive who now heads Chief Executives for Corporate Purpose, a nonprofit of more than 200 companies focused on social impact.

The movement to bake accountability into business decisions stretches back centuries; the term ESG gained momentum after the United Nations used it about 20 years ago. Over time, the effort became divisive—derided by some state officials as “woke capitalism,” and criticised by others for putting too much focus on measurement and disclosure requirements.

Many CEOs stress that they continue to follow sustainability commitments made years ago—even if they are no longer talking about them as often publicly. A December survey by the advisory firm Teneo found that about 8% of CEOs are ramping down their ESG programs; the rest are staying the course but often making changes to how they handle them.

Many leaders are more closely examining disclosures, wanting to avoid regulatory scrutiny or political criticism. In lieu of lofty pronouncements, advisers are telling CEOs to be more precise and to set goals that can be achieved. Saying as little as possible is recommended.

“We’ve seen a great deal of reframing and adjusting by CEOs in the ESG arena. Not only of what they say, but also where they say it and how they characterise it,” said Brad Karp, chair of law firm Paul Weiss who advises a number of CEOs. “Most companies are moving forward operationally with their ESG programs, but not publicly touting them, or describing them in different ways.”

When Thomas Buberl, CEO of Paris-based insurer AXA, met in the U.S. last year with the leaders of an asset manager, a fertiliser maker and a tech company, executives suggested that he reflect the newfound caution. “I used the abbreviation ESG, and people taught me not to use that word,” Buberl said. “I said, ‘What do you want me to call it?’”

Few people had a ready answer. Buberl said the importance of environmental efforts and other goals shouldn’t be underplayed. “We need to move from intentions to actions,” he said.

ESG became even more politicised following a spat in 2022 between Disney and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. That opened the door to sharp commentary on ESG efforts broadly by more than a dozen other state officials and a pullback by some asset managers. Investors yanked more than $14 billion from ESG funds in the first nine months of 2023, according to Morningstar.

BlackRock’s Larry Fink wrote a letter to investors in 2023 that didn’t explicitly reference ESG, after some states pulled money in 2022 over the firm’s ESG emphasis. State Street in November announced a new voting policy for investors who may not want to emphasise ESG as heavily. Fidelity last year removed language considering potential ESG impacts from its proxy-review process.

On earnings calls, mentions of ESG rose steadily until 2021 and have declined since, according to a FactSet analysis. In the fourth quarter of 2021, 155 companies in the S&P 500 mentioned ESG initiatives; by the second quarter of 2023, that had fallen to 61 mentions.

Adding to the challenges for companies is that some dimensions of ESG, particularly the social goals, can be difficult to quantify. Corporate diversity programs, often part of an ESG agenda, face new scrutiny following a Supreme Court decision on affirmative action and legal challenges from largely conservative groups.

Executives and their advisers say companies remain more committed to the “E” in ESG, wanting to respond to climate change. Some CEOs say that environmental factors are crucial to their business, one reason many went to Dubai for COP28, the U.N.’s climate conference. Climate change is also likely to be a key theme at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, next week.

Revathi Advaithi, CEO of Flex, said the manufacturer has 130 factories across the world and there isn’t a question of whether they need to operate in a sustainable way.

“It’s not as though I got a whole bunch of new investors because we had a sustainability report or we were ESG-focused,” she said. “We didn’t do it for that purpose…. We wanted to focus on water reduction, power reduction, all those things. So I don’t view it as, hey, it’s a trend that came today and it’s gonna go off tomorrow.”

Some of the changes leaders are making are subtle. At Coca-Cola, the company published a “Business & ESG” report in 2022; in 2023, it was released as the “Business and Sustainability” report. The beverage giant also renamed committees on its board of directors.

The fiercest critics of ESG say they welcome less discussion of it. “If this trend is decreasing, these CEOs must have realised that this puts them at greater legal risk and costs them customers,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has pushed back against ESG policies, in a statement.

What to call such efforts now remains a debate. Brewster’s nonprofit CEO group advises leaders to discuss initiatives in clear language, explaining efforts to cut water use, for example, or to use terms such as “our people” or “our natural resources.” Brewster said he wants more leaders to adopt the phrase “responsible business.”

“You can be anti-ESG,” Brewster said. “It’s hard to be anti-responsibility.”

For years, global companies showcased their Chinese operations as a source of robust growth. A burgeoning middle class, a stream of people moving to cities, and the creation of new services to cater to them—along with the promise of the further opening of the world’s second-largest economy—drew companies eager to tap into the action.

Then Covid hit, isolating China from much of the world. Chinese leader Xi Jinping tightened control of the economy, and U.S.-China relations hit a nadir. After decades of rapid growth, China’s economy is stuck in a rut, with increasing concerns about what will drive the next phase of its growth.

Though Chinese officials have acknowledged the sputtering economy, they have been reluctant to take more than incremental steps to reverse the trend. Making matters worse, government crackdowns on internet companies and measures to burst the country’s property bubble left households and businesses scarred.

Lowered Expectations

Now, multinational companies are taking a hard look at their Chinese operations and tempering their outlooks. Marriott International narrowed its global revenue per available room growth rate to 3% to 4%, citing continued weakness in China and expectations that demand could weaken further in the third quarter. Paris-based Kering , home to brands Gucci and Saint Laurent, posted a 22% decline in sales in the Asia-Pacific region, excluding Japan, in the first half amid weaker demand in Greater China, which includes Hong Kong and Macau.

Pricing pressure and deflation were common themes in quarterly results. Starbucks , which helped build a coffee culture in China over the past 25 years, described it as one of its most notable international challenges as it posted a 14% decline in sales from that business. As Chinese consumers reconsidered whether to spend money on Starbucks lattes, competitors such as Luckin Coffee increased pressure on the Seattle company. Starbucks executives said in their quarterly earnings call that “unprecedented store expansion” by rivals and a price war hurt profits and caused “significant disruptions” to the operating environment.

Executive anxiety extends beyond consumer companies. Elevator maker Otis Worldwide saw new-equipment orders in China fall by double digits in the second quarter, forcing it to cut its outlook for growth out of Asia. CEO Judy Marks told analysts on a quarterly earnings call that prices in China were down roughly 10% year over year, and she doesn’t see the pricing pressure abating. The company is turning to productivity improvements and cost cutting to blunt the hit.

Add in the uncertainty created by deteriorating U.S.-China relations, and many investors are steering clear. The iShares MSCI China exchange-traded fund has lost half its value since March 2021. Recovery attempts have been short-lived. undefined undefined And now some of those concerns are creeping into the U.S. market. “A decade ago China exposure [for a global company] was a way to add revenue growth to our portfolio,” says Margaret Vitrano, co-manager of large-cap growth strategies at ClearBridge Investments in New York. Today, she notes, “we now want to manage the risk of the China exposure.”

Vitrano expects improvement in 2025, but cautions it will be slow. Uncertainty over who will win the U.S. presidential election and the prospect of higher tariffs pose additional risks for global companies.

Behind the Malaise

For now, China is inching along at roughly 5% economic growth—down from a peak of 14% in 2007 and an average of about 8% in the 10 years before the pandemic. Chinese consumers hit by job losses and continued declines in property values are rethinking spending habits. Businesses worried about policy uncertainty are reluctant to invest and hire.

The trouble goes beyond frugal consumers. Xi is changing the economy’s growth model, relying less on the infrastructure and real estate market that fueled earlier growth. That means investing aggressively in manufacturing and exports as China looks to become more self-reliant and guard against geopolitical tensions.

The shift is hurting western multinationals, with deflationary forces amid burgeoning production capacity. “We have seen the investment community mark down expectations for these companies because they will have to change tack with lower-cost products and services,” says Joseph Quinlan, head of market strategy for the chief investment office at Merrill and Bank of America Private Bank.

Another challenge for multinationals outside of China is stiffened competition as Chinese companies innovate and expand—often with the backing of the government. Local rivals are upping the ante across sectors by building on their knowledge of local consumer preferences and the ability to produce higher-quality products.

Some global multinationals are having a hard time keeping up with homegrown innovation. Auto makers including General Motors have seen sales tumble and struggled to turn profitable as Chinese car shoppers increasingly opt for electric vehicles from BYD or NIO that are similar in price to internal-combustion-engine cars from foreign auto makers.

“China’s electric-vehicle makers have by leaps and bounds surpassed the capabilities of foreign brands who have a tie to the profit pool of internal combustible engines that they don’t want to disrupt,” says Christine Phillpotts, a fund manager for Ariel Investments’ emerging markets strategies.

Chinese companies are often faster than global rivals to market with new products or tweaks. “The cycle can be half of what it is for a global multinational with subsidiaries that need to check with headquarters, do an analysis, and then refresh,” Phillpotts says.

For many companies and investors, next year remains a question mark. Ashland CEO Guillermo Novo said in an August call with analysts that the chemical company was seeing a “big change” in China, with activity slowing and competition on pricing becoming more aggressive. The company, he said, was still trying to grasp the repercussions as it has created uncertainty in its 2025 outlook.

Sticking Around

Few companies are giving up. Executives at big global consumer and retail companies show no signs of reducing investment, with most still describing China as a long-term growth market, says Dana Telsey, CEO of Telsey Advisory Group.

Starbucks executives described the long-term opportunity as “significant,” with higher growth and margin opportunities in the future as China’s population continues to move from rural to suburban areas. But they also noted that their approach is evolving and they are in the early stages of exploring strategic partnerships.

Walmart sold its stake in August in Chinese e-commerce giant JD.com for $3.6 billion after an eight-year noncompete agreement expired. Analysts expect it to pump the money into its own Sam’s Club and Walmart China operation, which have benefited from the trend toward trading down in China.

“The story isn’t over for the global companies,” Phillpotts says. “It just means the effort and investment will be greater to compete.”

Corrections & Amplifications

Joseph Quinlan is head of market strategy for the chief investment office at Merrill and Bank of America Private Bank. An earlier version of this article incorrectly used his old title.

The Latest Dirty Word in Corporate America: ESG

Executives switch to alternatives like ‘responsible business’ to describe corporate initiatives

Multinationals like Starbucks and Marriott are taking a hard look at their Chinese operations—and tempering their outlooks.

Lowered Expectations

Behind the Malaise

Sticking Around