ESG? DEI? Call It what you like, but let’s just crack on
There’s been a fair bit of noise lately about BlackRock Chairman, Larry Fink's, latest letter to his shareholders. The headlines were quick to point out what said, no big ESG fanfare, no nod to DEI, just... silence. Some have jumped to the conclusion that this is the final nail in the coffin for ESG.
But let’s take a breath.
If you read between the lines, it seems more like they’re turning down the volume on the shouting match from the extremes of the market and politics. Less noise, more doing. And maybe, that’s not such a bad thing.
He did state, a couple of years back, “I'm not going to use the word ESG because it's been misused by the far left and the far right.” Instead, he pivoted to talking about ‘conscientious capitalism’.
But here’s the thing: BlackRock still clearly cares about corporate sustainability, environmental sustainability, social impact, and good governance, not just in their own operations but in the companies they back.
Interestingly, what Fink did emphasise in his latest letter was the growing focus on private capital markets, a shift that makes a lot of sense. In his words it will "allow our clients to more seamlessly access both public and private markets, taking advantage of the opportunities in infrastructure and private credit, as well as benefiting from better data and analytics to measure risk and identify opportunities across their whole portfolio."
He's taking a very sensible approach towards energy infrastructure. He states "We need energy pragmatism. That starts with fixing the slow, broken permitting processes. But it also means being clear-eyed about our energy mix." Some commentary is crying this is a shift to the far right. But maybe if one considers the full context of his position, one might see that it actually makes a lot of sense.
Private markets often give companies the runway to work on long-term initiatives, like sustainability, without the pressure of public market short-termism. So, while the ESG banners might be getting rolled up, the underlying principles are quietly moving into more private conversations. They’re just choosing not to paint it neon green and flash it in everyone’s face at every investor call.
Back to my headline.... even activist groups seem to be easing off a bit of the shouting. In a recent Reuters article, there’s been a noticeable tempering of demands, giving companies a bit more space to actually get on with the business of being, well, a business.
And they’re not alone. Take Air New Zealand, for example, they recently recalibrated their carbon emissions targets, recognising the commercial realities of ageing aircraft and limited sustainable fuel options. Their CEO, Greg Foran, summed it up well, they’re not backing away from their ambitions, but being upfront with customers and stakeholders about the realities of the journey. It's a smart move, transparency over bravado.
Sensible, right? No point setting yourself up to fail just to look good on a slide deck. Sometimes pragmatism is the most sustainable approach, because you’ve got to have a business that can exist if you want to keep doing good things.
So, here’s my take:
✅ If you’re serious about attracting premium clients, investors, and team members, keep pursuing the stuff that matters.
✅ Don’t worry too much about the label. If "ESG" and “DEI” feels too idealistic, call it good business sense, or respect and opportunity.
✅ The name isn’t the important bit. What matters is making it fit for purpose, having a crack, measuring it, and most importantly, keeping it real.
So, let’s get on with it. Call it whatever you like. Just make sure you do it well.
💬 Curious to hear your thoughts — is this a soft pivot or the start of a new chapter for ESG and DEI? Let’s open the floor.