Real asset investors have long recognised that assets with robust governance, strong environmental management and solid stakeholder relationships are inherently more resilient, writes Eleanor Fraser-Smith
For too long, the case for ESG investing has been made in the language of compromise. Investors were told, implicitly or explicitly, that they might need to accept slightly lower returns in exchange for better environmental or social outcomes.
It was a weak argument, and over time it became an expensive one. It invited scepticism, encouraged caricature and left ESG vulnerable to political attack. Most importantly, it obscured the stronger case for integrating these factors into investment decision-making in the first place. That case is now coming into sharper focus. It is not rooted primarily in values, but in valuation.
The real question is not whether investors should sacrifice returns for principles. It is whether assets that are better managed across environmental, social and governance dimensions are more resilient, and whether that resilience leads to better long-term outcomes.
In many cases, the answer increasingly looks like yes.
A return on resilience
The idea of return on portfolio resilience begins with a simple premise. Assets that are run well tend to perform more consistently. They are better able to absorb shocks, adapt to regulation, maintain stronger relationships with customers, employees and communities, and preserve flexibility when conditions become more difficult. In private markets especially, those qualities can influence cash flow stability, cost of capital, operational performance, insurability, financing terms and exit valuations.
Seen through that lens, ESG is not a moral overlay on investing. It is a way of understanding the quality and durability of an asset more fully. Good investors have always tried to identify risks the market has underpriced and capabilities it has undervalued. Increasingly, this is where ESG belongs, not in a separate category of virtue, but within the discipline of investment judgement itself.
Many investors, particularly in infrastructure, real estate and private equity, have long recognised that assets with stronger governance, better environmental management and more thoughtful stakeholder relationships often prove more durable. What is changing is the evidence base. A growing body of research now points to measurable differences in outcomes between assets where these factors are actively managed and those where they are treated mainly as a reporting requirement.
That distinction matters. One reason the ESG debate became so muddled is that it collapsed very different activities into one label. Screening, disclosure, stewardship, thematic investing, climate transition planning and operational value creation all sat under the same umbrella. Critics attacked the weakest versions. Supporters too often defended the whole bundle at once. The result was confusion.
The more useful question is not whether ESG, in the abstract, works. It is which practices, applied where, improve decision-making and outcomes.
Integration across the investment lifecycle
For long-term investors, especially in private markets, active ownership is where conviction is tested. It is where operating models are strengthened, governance is improved, transition risks are managed, supply chains are made more robust and stakeholder relationships are either built or neglected. These are not peripheral issues. They are often central to whether an asset performs well across a holding period and whether it exits at a premium or a discount.
That is why the idea of return on resilience matters. It shifts the focus from static compliance to continuous value creation, asking not whether an investment passes a screen, but whether it is becoming stronger, more adaptable and more valuable over time. It also moves the debate onto terrain that fiduciaries should recognise immediately: downside protection, operational improvement and long-term value.
This is especially relevant now. Investors are operating in a world of greater volatility, tighter financing conditions, more visible physical climate risks, political pressure on supply chains, and rising scrutiny of labour practices and corporate conduct. In that environment, resilience is increasingly a source of competitive advantage.
None of this means every ESG claim is justified, or that every sustainability initiative adds value. Some do not. Some are cosmetic, poorly governed or disconnected from commercial reality. The backlash against ESG has drawn strength from those weaknesses, and not without reason. But that is an argument for higher standards of proof, not for abandoning the field altogether.
The next phase of this debate will be less about commitments and more about evidence. The firms that lead it will not be the ones with the longest reports or the broadest slogans. They will be the ones that can show, through the performance of real assets across real investment cycles, that careful management of environmental, social and governance factors improve outcomes for the investors they serve.
That is a harder case to make, but a more durable one. Fiduciary responsibility is not fulfilled by ignoring financially relevant risks because they happen to sit inside a politicised acronym, or by treating ESG as a branding exercise. It is fulfilled by understanding the drivers of risk and return as completely as possible, and acting on them with discipline.
To read the latest IPE Real Assets magazine click here.
