CFO Slice

Sustainable finance professionals are debating whether terms such as “ESG,” “sustainability,” and “net zero” should be replaced as they become increasingly politicized and remain poorly understood by the public. Research by nonprofit marketing firm Potential Energy found that few of 15,000 surveyed consumers could correctly define ESG, while “responsible business” resonated more broadly because people associated it with protecting the environment, managing resources, and supporting workers and communities. Experts disagree on the best approach. Some advocate simpler, more relatable language or greater precision about specific objectives, while others argue that ESG remains a useful framework for corporate sustainability risk disclosures. Alternative terminology, including “electrotech,” “resilience,” and “community,” is also emerging as businesses and investors seek to emphasize the economic, technological, and local benefits of the low-carbon transition. Others caution that rebranding could distract from the substance of sustainable investing and is unlikely to resolve opposition to the underlying work. They argue that investment strategies should instead be firmly grounded in clear objectives and high-quality execution. Some also see constantly evolving terminology as inevitable, reflecting changes in sustainability concepts, priorities, and the broader economic environment.