ESG
ESG has become part of the corporate vocabulary, but familiarity has bred scepticism. To rebuild trust, companies need clearer evidence, stronger governance and reporting that shows what has changed, not only what has been promised.
By Ebrahim Moolla
ESG refers to environmental, social, and governance factors, a broad set of issues that includes climate exposure, labour practices, resource use, board accountability, and business conduct. At its best, it helps companies assess risk, responsibility, and long-term value. At its weakest ebb, it gives companies a way to sound serious about their responsibilities while remaining vague about cost, risk, and consequence.
The issues behind ESG are real. They affect businesses in material ways. Yet the language often carries too much weight. It is fluent in commitment, purpose, impact and resilience. It knows how to soften a tradeoff into a sentence. It must reassure investors, satisfy regulators, impress employees, calm activists, please customers and decorate annual reports.
Eventually, virtue starts to sound like compliance. ESG does not suffer from a lack of vocabulary. It suffers from a shortage of proof.
The credibility gap A 2025 OECD study of more than 2 000 metrics across eight major ESG rating products found that most capture self-reported policies and activities, while only around a third measure actual outputs such as emissions, accidents, or pay gaps. The architecture of ESG measurement is still weighted towards what companies say they are doing, not only what they have done. This reliance on input-based metrics can encourage tickboxing over actual risk prevention and mitigation.
The enforcement environment is beginning to reflect this
60 sabusinessintegrator. co. za