ESG inventor says Trump its 'best possible advert'
The man credited for coining "ESG" - environmental, social and governance - considers US President Donald Trump the ideal advertisement for responsible investment.
Paul Clements-Hunt, a former United Nations official, said the Republican leader was illustrative of the pitfalls of "getting economics wrong" by fuelling social inequality.
"Trump is the best possible advert for ESG, particularly the "G" at the governance level," he told a sustainable investment forum on Wednesday.
The Blended Capital Group chief executive officer was pressed for his views on the percolating ESG backlash at the two-day Responsible Investment Association Australasia conference in Sydney.
He spoke alongside Maria Lettini, chief executive officer at the US Sustainable Investment Forum and on the front line of the anti-ESG sentiment taking root in America.
Ms Lettini said it was hard to keep up with efforts in the US to unwind and undermine climate change and ESG polices, such as potential roll-backs to renewable and clean tech incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act.
Asked if responsible investment advocates were doing enough to defend ESG as a useful lens for delivering risk-adjusted returns, Ms Lettini recommended going "back to basics" on communication.
"We need basic data, we are responding to clients wishes, we're responding to our fiduciary duty obligations," she said.
"And it sounds a bit rolling back a couple of decades to be very dry with our responses, but that's what we are doing more."
University of Melbourne professor of US politics Timothy Lynch was critical of ESG, describing it as a "terrible advert for what it is trying to do", reliant on "huge subsidy" and "management by elites".
Prof Lynch posited the popular perception of ESG was of elites taking up incentives for clean energy while "forgetting the lived experience of many people that don't benefit".
"It's too much concern with posturing and less with economic realities," he said.
Mr Clements-Hunt said responsible investment was about identifying for-profit business models that delivered impact, including sanitation and clean energy in Sub-Saharan Africa.
"I can't agree with that suggestion of lecturing to poor people," Mr Clements-Hunt countered.
ESG was never intended as a political slogan to appeal to ordinary people, he said, but rather devised to change cultures within asset owner organisations.
"It was just to ask the question, how do these systemic risks chew up your capital? And how do you unlock value in the long term?"
Mr Clements-Hunt said it had largely "done its job" and was now embedded into the prudential oversight system and other financial frameworks.
The man credited for coining "ESG" - environmental, social and governance - considers US President Donald Trump the ideal advertisement for responsible investment.
Paul Clements-Hunt, a former United Nations official, said the Republican leader was illustrative of the pitfalls of "getting economics wrong" by fuelling social inequality.
"Trump is the best possible advert for ESG, particularly the "G" at the governance level," he told a sustainable investment forum on Wednesday.
The Blended Capital Group chief executive officer was pressed for his views on the percolating ESG backlash at the two-day Responsible Investment Association Australasia conference in Sydney.
He spoke alongside Maria Lettini, chief executive officer at the US Sustainable Investment Forum and on the front line of the anti-ESG sentiment taking root in America.
Ms Lettini said it was hard to keep up with efforts in the US to unwind and undermine climate change and ESG polices, such as potential roll-backs to renewable and clean tech incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act.
Asked if responsible investment advocates were doing enough to defend ESG as a useful lens for delivering risk-adjusted returns, Ms Lettini recommended going "back to basics" on communication.
"We need basic data, we are responding to clients wishes, we're responding to our fiduciary duty obligations," she said.
"And it sounds a bit rolling back a couple of decades to be very dry with our responses, but that's what we are doing more."
University of Melbourne professor of US politics Timothy Lynch was critical of ESG, describing it as a "terrible advert for what it is trying to do", reliant on "huge subsidy" and "management by elites".
Prof Lynch posited the popular perception of ESG was of elites taking up incentives for clean energy while "forgetting the lived experience of many people that don't benefit".
"It's too much concern with posturing and less with economic realities," he said.
Mr Clements-Hunt said responsible investment was about identifying for-profit business models that delivered impact, including sanitation and clean energy in Sub-Saharan Africa.
"I can't agree with that suggestion of lecturing to poor people," Mr Clements-Hunt countered.
ESG was never intended as a political slogan to appeal to ordinary people, he said, but rather devised to change cultures within asset owner organisations.
"It was just to ask the question, how do these systemic risks chew up your capital? And how do you unlock value in the long term?"
Mr Clements-Hunt said it had largely "done its job" and was now embedded into the prudential oversight system and other financial frameworks.
The man credited for coining "ESG" - environmental, social and governance - considers US President Donald Trump the ideal advertisement for responsible investment.
Paul Clements-Hunt, a former United Nations official, said the Republican leader was illustrative of the pitfalls of "getting economics wrong" by fuelling social inequality.
"Trump is the best possible advert for ESG, particularly the "G" at the governance level," he told a sustainable investment forum on Wednesday.
The Blended Capital Group chief executive officer was pressed for his views on the percolating ESG backlash at the two-day Responsible Investment Association Australasia conference in Sydney.
He spoke alongside Maria Lettini, chief executive officer at the US Sustainable Investment Forum and on the front line of the anti-ESG sentiment taking root in America.
Ms Lettini said it was hard to keep up with efforts in the US to unwind and undermine climate change and ESG polices, such as potential roll-backs to renewable and clean tech incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act.
Asked if responsible investment advocates were doing enough to defend ESG as a useful lens for delivering risk-adjusted returns, Ms Lettini recommended going "back to basics" on communication.
"We need basic data, we are responding to clients wishes, we're responding to our fiduciary duty obligations," she said.
"And it sounds a bit rolling back a couple of decades to be very dry with our responses, but that's what we are doing more."
University of Melbourne professor of US politics Timothy Lynch was critical of ESG, describing it as a "terrible advert for what it is trying to do", reliant on "huge subsidy" and "management by elites".
Prof Lynch posited the popular perception of ESG was of elites taking up incentives for clean energy while "forgetting the lived experience of many people that don't benefit".
"It's too much concern with posturing and less with economic realities," he said.
Mr Clements-Hunt said responsible investment was about identifying for-profit business models that delivered impact, including sanitation and clean energy in Sub-Saharan Africa.
"I can't agree with that suggestion of lecturing to poor people," Mr Clements-Hunt countered.
ESG was never intended as a political slogan to appeal to ordinary people, he said, but rather devised to change cultures within asset owner organisations.
"It was just to ask the question, how do these systemic risks chew up your capital? And how do you unlock value in the long term?"
Mr Clements-Hunt said it had largely "done its job" and was now embedded into the prudential oversight system and other financial frameworks.
The man credited for coining "ESG" - environmental, social and governance - considers US President Donald Trump the ideal advertisement for responsible investment.
Paul Clements-Hunt, a former United Nations official, said the Republican leader was illustrative of the pitfalls of "getting economics wrong" by fuelling social inequality.
"Trump is the best possible advert for ESG, particularly the "G" at the governance level," he told a sustainable investment forum on Wednesday.
The Blended Capital Group chief executive officer was pressed for his views on the percolating ESG backlash at the two-day Responsible Investment Association Australasia conference in Sydney.
He spoke alongside Maria Lettini, chief executive officer at the US Sustainable Investment Forum and on the front line of the anti-ESG sentiment taking root in America.
Ms Lettini said it was hard to keep up with efforts in the US to unwind and undermine climate change and ESG polices, such as potential roll-backs to renewable and clean tech incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act.
Asked if responsible investment advocates were doing enough to defend ESG as a useful lens for delivering risk-adjusted returns, Ms Lettini recommended going "back to basics" on communication.
"We need basic data, we are responding to clients wishes, we're responding to our fiduciary duty obligations," she said.
"And it sounds a bit rolling back a couple of decades to be very dry with our responses, but that's what we are doing more."
University of Melbourne professor of US politics Timothy Lynch was critical of ESG, describing it as a "terrible advert for what it is trying to do", reliant on "huge subsidy" and "management by elites".
Prof Lynch posited the popular perception of ESG was of elites taking up incentives for clean energy while "forgetting the lived experience of many people that don't benefit".
"It's too much concern with posturing and less with economic realities," he said.
Mr Clements-Hunt said responsible investment was about identifying for-profit business models that delivered impact, including sanitation and clean energy in Sub-Saharan Africa.
"I can't agree with that suggestion of lecturing to poor people," Mr Clements-Hunt countered.
ESG was never intended as a political slogan to appeal to ordinary people, he said, but rather devised to change cultures within asset owner organisations.
"It was just to ask the question, how do these systemic risks chew up your capital? And how do you unlock value in the long term?"
Mr Clements-Hunt said it had largely "done its job" and was now embedded into the prudential oversight system and other financial frameworks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
17 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Gavin Newsom ‘siding with the cartels' as investigation launched into LA riots funding
US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has agreed with claims that California Governor Gavin Newsom is 'siding with the cartels" over the LA riots. "Whether he knows it or not he is (siding with the cartels) – certainly," Gabbard told Fox News on Wednesday. Her remarks come as an investigation is being launched into the funding behind LA's anti-ICE protests. Republican Senator Josh Hawley has launched an investigation into a California-based left-wing group he claims may be funding the violent protests in Los Angeles. Senator Hawley sent a letter Wednesday to the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), accusing the group of potentially 'financially and materially supporting' what he called 'coordinated' protests and riots in Los Angeles. It comes as Los Angeles has endured a sixth day of demonstrations against targeted Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in the city.
ABC News
33 minutes ago
- ABC News
The Trump administration's AUKUS review set off a political storm, but it doesn't mean the deal is dead
News that the Trump administration is reviewing AUKUS broke like a wave over Australia this morning. Defence Minister Richard Marles has responded with determined calm, saying Australia has known about the review for "weeks" and that it was perfectly "natural and understandable" for the new administration to "look under the hood" of the submarine pact. The review won't necessarily sound a death knell for AUKUS and there are plenty of experts who say it delivers enough benefits to the United States to ensure its survival. But it has provoked a storm of controversy and speculation, with defenders of the project taking to the battlements and sceptics declaring it will offer a golden opportunity for the government to escape a pact that is shaping as a strategic catastrophe for Australia. And there are also plenty of signs the Trump administration is happy to use the review to twist Australia's arm on defence spending — putting the prime minister in an awkward position ahead of an anticipated meeting with Donald Trump. At this stage, details are scant. A Pentagon official says the US wants to make sure the plan aligns with Mr Trump's "America First" agenda, ensuring "the highest readiness of our service members" and "that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs". It will be led by senior official Elbridge Colby, who has been a high-profile AUKUS sceptic — although he has sounded more open to the initiative since taking office. Still, Mr Colby warned during his confirmation hearings that the US would only be able to sell nuclear powered submarines to Australia under AUKUS if the US managed to ramp up submarine production to meet its own critical needs. Put simply: if the US Navy is facing a nightmare scenario, like a war in the Taiwan Strait, then it might prefer to have those additional submarines under its direct control, instead of under the command of another country that might choose to steer clear of the fight. Under the AUKUS agreement, Washington will only begin to transfer second-hand Virginia-class submarines to Australia if it can first lift its local production rate of nuclear-powered boats to at least two a year by 2028. Currently, American shipyards are producing around 1.2 nuclear-powered attack submarines per year but will need to hit a target production rate of 2.33 before any can be sold to Australia. Analyst Euan Graham from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says the administration will "need to be convinced that the short-term loss to the US Navy's submarine order of battle is worth the longer-term gains from basing and maintenance and greater interoperability". "Support from the US Navy and Congress will be critical," he said. But the administration will also face real costs — not least to US credibility — if it pulls the plug. US analyst Richard Fontaine says all three countries have "absorbed financial and diplomatic costs to get to this point" and "walking away would amount to a strategic setback and devastate ties with Australia". That might explain why some Australian officials and politicians insist they are quietly confident Mr Trump and his key lieutenants will not abandon AUKUS. Questions around the US industrial base and grand strategy might dominate the review, but the process is not happening in a vacuum. The Pentagon says it will use the review to make sure "allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence". In the past few months, both US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Mr Colby have publicly demanded that Australia dramatically lift defence spending. The message seems clear. Nobody in the US is saying outright that AUKUS could face the chop if Australia refuses to play ball. But by directly linking the two issues, the Trump administration seems to be flagging that it is happy to use AUKUS as leverage. Unsurprisingly, some Australian MPs are predicting Mr Trump will demand the Albanese government commit to pour more money into the US submarine industrial base. It is still not certain if Anthony Albanese will sit down with Mr Trump on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Canada next week, for their first face-to-face meeting. But if they do, it is certain AUKUS and defence spending will be at (or near) the top of the agenda. And the Trump administration's decision to apparently leak — or let slip — news about the review just days before the meeting shows they are happy to put the acid on Australia. If AUKUS does get scrapped, Australia will be left with a very hefty bill and nothing to show for it. Under the AUKUS deal, Australia last year began making a series of multi-billion-dollar payments to the United States and United Kingdom to help boost submarine industrial production in both nations. Earlier this year, the government made a $768 million down-payment to the US as part of an overall pledge of $4.7 billion, to help secure the transfer of second-hand Virginia-class submarines here in the 2030s. Australia is also scheduled to pay $4.6 billion to the UK to help support the eventual construction of a new SSN-AUKUS fleet, but the government and defence have been reluctant to admit these contributions have a no-refund clause if the submarines do not arrive. That is not the only sunk cost. As Greens senator David Shoebridge points out, Australia is also "spending $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money to build a US nuclear submarine base that will be operational by 2027 just off Perth". Ever since former prime minister Scott Morrison tore up Australia's submarine deal with France in favour of the AUKUS nuclear option, the ambitious deal has dominated the Defence Department's future planning and efforts. Despite concerns about the direction of AUKUS under the Trump administration, Mr Marles dismissed calls to develop a fallback plan in case the US reneges on the pact. If the AUKUS deal was to collapse, Australia's options to acquire submarines, conventionally powered or nuclear, are extremely limited. France would be reluctant to resume the now-scrapped Attack-class program with Australia, while Germany, which was overlooked in 2016, has indicated its submarine construction yards already have full order books. Australia could potentially return cap-in-hand to Japan, more than a decade after a handshake deal between former prime minister Shinzo Abe and then-prime minister Tony Abbott was made to buy that country's Soryu-class submarines. But the reality is that if AUKUS does fall through, Australia will be facing a yawning capability gap, with no obvious replacement for our dependable but rapidly ageing Collins Class submarines — all at a time when we're facing the most perilous strategic landscape in decades.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
US defence policy ‘realigning' to Donald Trump's ‘America First' strategy
Former Army director general Retired Brigadier Ian Langford discusses the 'realignment' of the United States' defence and foreign policy agenda to accord with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' strategy. Ties between Canberra and Washington have frayed as the Trump administration launches a review of the AUKUS deal after the Albanese government resisted requests to lift defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP. 'What concerns the Americans is obviously the build rate of the Virginia class, and indeed also their nuclear boat, the Columbia class, as it relates to their own capabilities in competition with a resurgent China," Mr Langford said.
