ESG is tricky to talk about thanks to the politization of it. I work on some projects that involve ESG data and I have some thoughts. First there's LOTS of factors. If you bunch them all up into one number, it becomes meaningless as the article describes. I would think wiser minds would use this data to make investment decisions based on some specific risk, like hedging against some environmental disaster which may a…
Making an assumption that the factors into an ESG score are significant in how they affect a company; isn't investing into a company with a bad ESG sub-component(s) a good idea? You've identified what is going wrong with the company so as a large fund you can buy a lot of shares and push for shareholder votes to fix those aspects of the company and reap profits when the company improves?
Yes, that is the paradox of the ESG finance trend.
Using a quantitative approach, you can use the CAPM to show that at equal risk/return, increasing the cost of capital of some companies (by limiting their access to funding because of low ESG score) actually make these companies a comparatively more profitable investment (for those that disregard ESG).
If you like these kind of paradoxes based on investor ethics, have fun discovering the world of Islamic finance and how to get interests when you cannot get interests.