In today's world, sustainability has become a buzzword, a badge of honor that companies proudly display. But how much of this supposed progress is real? A growing body of evidence suggests that the current sustainability ratings market often rewards companies for superficial changes rather than substantial, impactful actions. This illusion of progress can create a dangerous complacency, where companies appear to be improving their sustainability practices while, in reality, little has changed.
One of the most telling examples of this phenomenon comes from a review of MSCI ratings conducted by Bloomberg in 2021. The findings were eye-opening: most upgrades in sustainability ratings occurred for what Bloomberg termed "rudimentary business practices" rather than for meaningful improvements. In a detailed analysis of 155 upgrades, it was found that governance improvements were cited almost half (42 percent) of the time. This is a stark contrast to upgrades driven by social (32 percent) or environmental (26 percent) improvements, which one might expect to take center stage in any genuine sustainability effort.
But what exactly do these governance improvements entail? Often, they are little more than check-the-box practices—things like conducting an employee survey that might reduce turnover. While such measures are not without merit, they hardly represent the kind of transformational change that the planet urgently needs. In fact, the review found that upgrades were rarely driven by substantial practices, such as an actual reduction in carbon emissions. This is a critical point: the very heart of sustainability should be about making the world a better place, not just about making a company's internal processes slightly more efficient or compliant.
Perhaps most concerning is the fact that half of the companies studied were upgraded without making any changes at all. These upgrades were the result of methodological changes in the rating system itself. In other words, companies were rewarded simply because the goalposts were moved, not because they had made any real progress. This is akin to raising a student's grade because the exam was made easier, not because the student learned more. It's a practice that not only misleads consumers and investors but also undermines the very purpose of sustainability ratings.
The implications of this "upward drift" in sustainability scoring are profound. When companies are rewarded for superficial or non-existent changes, they have little incentive to make the hard decisions and investments needed to address the complex environmental and social challenges we face. Instead, they can continue with business as usual, confident that their sustainability ratings will improve over time regardless of their actual impact on the planet or society.
This situation is particularly problematic because sustainability ratings are often used by investors, consumers, and other stakeholders to make decisions. If these ratings are not accurately reflecting a company's true impact, then those decisions are based on faulty information. This can lead to a misallocation of resources, where companies that are not genuinely sustainable receive more investment, while those that are making real progress are overlooked.
So, what can be done to address this issue? For one, sustainability ratings agencies need to be more transparent about their methodologies and the criteria they use for upgrades. It's essential that these agencies place a greater emphasis on substantive changes—such as actual reductions in carbon emissions, improvements in labor practices, and meaningful contributions to social equity—rather than on procedural changes that have little to no impact on the broader world.
Moreover, there needs to be greater scrutiny of companies' sustainability claims. This is where consumer-driven change can play a crucial role. Platforms like Susty, which directly link consumers with companies, offer a way for people to hold businesses accountable for their actions. By providing transparency and empowering consumers to make informed choices, these platforms can help shift the focus from risk and compliance to real impact.
In conclusion, while sustainability ratings can be a valuable tool, they are only as good as the criteria on which they are based. As it stands, the current system too often rewards superficial changes, allowing companies to appear more sustainable than they are. For sustainability to be more than just a marketing strategy, the focus must shift to substantive actions that make a real difference in the world. Only then can we hope to achieve the kind of progress that our planet so desperately needs.
Comentarios