Sustainable finance: measurement without mechanism

That still shapes how I think.

The regulatory work – permits, impact assessments, and monitoring – got done. Not because everyone had suddenly found a passion for newts or carbon emissions, but because the framework existed, consequences were real and the economics reflected that. The strategy work was patchier. Some reports gathered dust. But when I could point to cost-efficiency, a licence to operate, regulatory anticipation or competitive advantage, clients’ ears pricked up. It was an early lesson for a young, naive environmentalist: the world doesn’t run on warm fuzzy feelings from “doing the right thing”. 

When good intentions aren’t enough

Much of sustainability is about externalities. The costs are real, but they don’t always sit in the cash flows of the company creating them. Policy is how society tries to close that gap. Carbon prices, regulation, subsidies and market design connect sustainability consequences with commercial incentives.

At its best, sustainable finance understands that connection. It finds the point where sustainability imperatives and commercial goals meet, or where policy and technology may make them meet next. At its worst, it becomes measurement without mechanism.

The limits of labels and rankings

This is where I think the industry lost discipline.

Too many frameworks compress complex issues into scores, labels or rankings. They may create comparability, but often obscure the question that matters: how does this factor transmit into value?

If a physical climate risk is material to an asset, I expect it to show up somewhere: insurance, interruption, availability, demand, financing, margins, resilience expenditure, terminal value or discount rates. If it doesn’t connect to one of those channels, it may still matter to society, but it may not matter to the investment case. That’s the difference between analysis and theatre.

Not every sustainability factor can be priced neatly. The transmission channel may be uncertain, under-disclosed or immature. But the discipline is the same. Is the market missing a risk, overreacting to one, or failing to recognise how policy, technology or behaviour may change the economics? Imperfect pricing is where judgement matters most.

Where sustainability meets value

That’s why fiduciary duty matters. Asset managers are agents, investing within agreed objectives and duties to clients. Without a mandate, they can’t absorb unrewarded risk to pursue outcomes that depend on others doing the same.

I’ve always thought sustainability becomes real when it moves from marketing messaging to the Chief Financial Officer’s desk. We are finally getting there. Less reliance on labels. Less pretending portfolio targets can substitute for policy. Less comfort in blended scores. More focus on pricing, incentives, mandate clarity and commercial relevance.

That’s why I’m positive about the sustainability reset. The next phase shouldn’t be post-ESG. It should be post-naivety. Sustainability matters enormously. In finance, it matters when it changes the economics. I want to find that link, test it, price it and act on it. Everything else is measurement without mechanism.

More from The Witt

Short, incisive perspectives – fresh takes on the issues driving markets today.

Latest articles from The Witt