Why ESG Investing Might Never Recover

The ESG brand probably has its best days behind it.

Following a three-year craze for investment products focused on environmental, social and corporate-governance concerns, the percentage of newly created funds in the U.S. and Europe with ESG in their name has fallen from a peak of 8.3% to just 3.3%, according to an analysis of quarterly data by Morningstar Direct.

Likewise, online searches for “ESG investing” have plummeted back to mid-2019 levels, according to Google Trends. Mentions of the term in company analyst calls have dropped 59% from their quarterly peak in 2022, FactSet data suggest.

One explanation is the collapse of the clean-energy stocks most readily associated with the ESG movement. Flagging growth in electric-vehicle sales has hit sector behemoth Tesla . The S&P Global Clean Energy index, which lists solar-panel maker First Solar and Danish wind-turbine giant Vestas among its top constituents, has lost 31% since the start of 2023 as renewable-energy projects have been shelved. That compares with returns of 27% for global stocks.

The rise of ESG investing between 2019 and 2022 coincided with a surge in clean-tech valuations, and now the reverse is happening. Investors have pulled $2.2 billion from funds dedicated to decarbonisation since the start of the year, according to EPFR, and the outflows are getting larger every week.

There is a risk that ESG was an investment fad rather than a financial revolution extending across all industries.

The term was the product of an uneasy three-way alliance. On one side were ethically driven investors, who are particularly widespread in Scandinavia and include pension funds, universities and religious organisations united in wanting to shun contentious firms. On another were institutions such as the United Nations that aimed to channel money to industries that benefit society. Finally, there were investors who wanted to profit from the green revolution.

Asset managers jumped at the chance to cater to all three simultaneously. ESG allowed them to differentiate their products, revitalise the case for active management and, at a time of declining fees, charge more for stock screens that often lead to only small changes in allocations . Among U.S. equity funds, ESG strategies have an asset-weighted average fee of 0.52%, compared with 0.33% overall, Morningstar Direct data shows.

But the confusion of motivations made for contradictions and a lot of doublespeak. Neither ethical objectives nor bets on decarbonisation square logically with fund managers’ claims that ESG is a broad path to higher, safer returns.

Yes, an ESG focus can help active managers account for risks such as a regulatory backlash or governance blow up, which in some cases might be highlighted by new company disclosures. This month the European Union cleared the way toward requiring firms to better report and address sustainability impacts.

However, the assumption that integrating ESG criteria into their screening will lead to better stock picking seems flawed . The very popularity of ESG makes it unlikely that the market is under appreciating the risks. The rush of money into firms like Vestas, whose stock hit a price-to-earnings ratio of 534 in 2022, illustrates the risk that shares with high sustainability scores can get too expensive, leading to lower returns.

Ethical investors might be fine with this, but that just shifts the focus to what counts as ethical. Tellingly, interest in ESG has dropped more in the U.S., where the politicisation of EVs and culture wars surrounding Bud Light beer show how easily corporations can become ideological battlegrounds.

ESG ratings aren’t much help in navigating these issues. Different providers give wildly different scores to the same companies, even within the specific “E,” “S” and “G” factors, according to a February paper by the Leibniz Institute SAFE. Researchers also found that environmental concerns tend to explain most of the overall score.

This is another hint that the ultimate driver of the pandemic-era ESG craze might have been a hunger for thematic investment. It has since found better sources of sustenance, as demonstrated by the breakneck growth of firms such as Global X, which is delivering increasingly granular offerings such as tracker funds for electric batteries, cloud computing and ageing populations.

Buyers of these products can be fickle and jump to the next theme—often too quickly for their own good, a Morningstar analysis showed last November. It is possible that the overly generic ESG brand will never recover its appeal, with the different parts of it eventually rebranded to suit their specific client bases. BlackRock , the world’s largest asset manager, has already dropped it and is now emphasising transition themes over ethical stewardship of companies.

Sustainable investing isn’t going anywhere. But a broad tent covering too many interests serves none of them well.

Apple has dominated the electronics supply chain for years. No more.

Artificial-intelligence companies are writing huge checks for chips, memory, specialised glass fibre and more, and they have begun to out-duel Apple in the race to secure components.

Suppliers accustomed to catering to Apple’s every whim are gaining the leverage to demand that the iPhone maker pay more.

Apple’s normally generous profit margins will face pressure this year, analysts say, and consumers could eventually feel the hit.

Chief Executive Tim Cook mentioned the problem in a Thursday earnings call, saying Apple was seeing constraints in its chip supplies and that memory prices were increasing significantly.

Those comments appeared to weigh on Apple shares, which traded flat despite blowout iPhone sales and record company profit.

“Apple is getting squeezed for sure,” said Sravan Kundojjala, who analyses the industry for research firm SemiAnalysis.

AI chip leader Nvidia recently became the largest customer of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing , or TSMC, Nvidia Chief Executive Jensen Huang said on a podcast.

Apple had been TSMC’s biggest customer by a wide margin for years. TSMC is the world’s leading manufacturer of advanced chips for AI servers, smartphones and other computing devices.

Spokesmen for Apple and TSMC declined to comment.

The big computers that handle AI tasks don’t look like the smartphones consumers own, but many companies supply components for both. In particular, memory chips are in short supply as companies such as OpenAI, Alphabet’s Google, Meta , Microsoft and others collectively spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build AI computing capacity.

“The rate of increase in the price of memory is unprecedented,” said Mike Howard , an analyst for research firm TechInsights.

That applies both to the flash memory chips that store photos and videos, called NAND, as well as the memory used to run apps quickly, called DRAM.

By the end of this year, the price of DRAM will quadruple from 2023 levels, and NAND will more than triple, estimates TechInsights.

Howard estimates that Apple could pay $57 more for the two types of memory that go into the base-model iPhone 18 due this fall compared with the base model iPhone 17 currently on sale. For a device that retails for $799, that would be a big hit to profit margins.

Apple’s purchasing power and expertise in designing advanced electronics long made it an unrivaled Goliath among the Asian companies that make most of the iPhone’s parts and assemble the device.

Apple spends billions of dollars a year on NAND, for instance, according to people familiar with the figures, likely making it the single biggest buyer globally. Suppliers flocked to win Apple’s business, hoping to leverage its know-how and prestige to attract other customers.

These days, however, “the companies now pushing the boundaries of human‑scale engineering are the ones like Nvidia,” said Ming-chi Kuo, an analyst with TF International Securities.

Demand for AI hardware is poised to keep growing rapidly. Apple’s spending growth is modest in comparison with what is being spent to fill up AI data centers, even though it is breaking records with huge sales of the iPhone 17.

Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix are raising the price of a type of DRAM chip for Apple, according to people familiar with Apple’s supply chain.

Big AI companies pay generously and are willing to lock in supply and make upfront payments, giving the South Korean chip makers leverage against the iPhone maker.

Apple signs long-term contracts for memory, but it has used its heft to squeeze suppliers.

Its contracts have empowered it to negotiate prices as often as weekly, and to even refuse to buy any memory from a supplier if Apple didn’t view the price as favorable, according to people familiar with its memory purchases.

To boost leverage with suppliers, Apple even began stocking more inventory of memory. That was atypical for Cook, who normally cuts inventory to the bone to maximize Apple’s cash flow.

Apple is fighting not only for current deliveries but also for the attention of engineers at suppliers.

Glass scientists who worked on developing the smoothest and lightest smartphone displays are now also spending time on specialised glass for packaging advanced AI processing chips, according to industry executives.

Makers of sensors and other gizmos inside the iPhone are winning new business from AI companies such as OpenAI that are developing their own hardware.

Still, suppliers said they were far from giving up on business with Apple. Working with Apple is a form of education, they said, because it remains one of the most demanding and disciplined customers in the industry.

TSMC, the Taiwanese chip manufacturer, has built successive generations of its most advanced chips with Apple as its lead customer, relying on the big predictable demand for iPhones.

Now that TSMC is doing more business with Nvidia and other AI companies, people with knowledge of the chip supply chain said Apple was exploring whether some lower-end processors could be made by someone other than TSMC.

One of Apple’s biggest profit-spinners is selling extra memory for far more than the memory chips cost the company.

Last fall Apple discontinued the iPhone Pro model with 128 gigabytes of storage.

Customers who want that model must now start at 256 gigabytes and pay $100 more—the type of move that could be repeated this year to help Apple offset higher costs, wrote Craig Moffett, an analyst at Moffett Nathanson, in an investor note.

However, Apple isn’t expected to raise the price of its next iPhone models over similarly equipped iPhone 17s, said Kuo, the analyst.

News Corp, owner of The Wall Street Journal, has a commercial agreement to supply news through Apple services.

Why ESG Investing Might Never Recover

The appeal of the moniker is waning, probably because it is trying to serve too many interests at once

Parts for iPhones to cost more owing to surging demand from AI companies.