“Is ESG costing us—or saving us?” This provocative question, raised by Ray Elshout, quickly became a viral conversation starter on LinkedIn. With a thought-provoking graphic and a detailed breakdown of where ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) value creation might be falling short, Elshout tapped into an ongoing debate: Is ESG costing us or saving us?
In a world where corporate ESG budgets are rising and carbon markets are booming, Elshout’s post hit the pulse of a growing concern—the divide between ESG as branding and ESG as genuine transformation.
Background & Context: Is ESG Costing Us or Saving Us?
Ray Elshout, who is affiliated with the prominent ESG consultancy Blue Room Hub, is known for his sharp critiques and data-driven posts on sustainability. His community of sustainability professionals, investors, and policy experts frequently engage with his tough questions surrounding ESG and its true impact.
Elshout’s June 2025 post comes at a crucial moment when ESG investing is facing global pushback. Major asset managers are tempering their ESG language, politicians are questioning its legitimacy, and sustainability executives are under pressure to deliver results—not just meet abstract targets.
In this context, Elshout’s challenge—Is ESG costing us or saving us?—stood out for its clarity and refusal to sugarcoat the conversation.
Main Takeaways from “Is ESG Costing Us or Saving Us”
1. Carbon Offsets ≠ Real Impact in ESG
One of Elshout’s primary critiques is the over-reliance on carbon offset schemes. These “loopholes” can hide the reality that many companies are still polluting. By focusing on external carbon credits rather than internal operational changes, companies may be ticking the boxes for ESG without actually reducing environmental harm. Elshout argues that this practice raises the question of Is ESG costing us or saving us in the long run.
2. We Need a Better Definition of ESG ROI
Elshout points to a Harvard Business Review analysis, which reveals that while ESG adoption has spread, evidence of value creation is patchy. Stakeholder trust is often touted as a benefit, but without measurable outcomes, it remains abstract. For ESG to prove its worth, we need metrics that tie directly to long-term business value. Is ESG costing us or saving us? Only with clear definitions and results can we answer this question.
3. Greenwashing Has Become Institutionalized in ESG
Perhaps the most striking line from Elshout’s post: “We’ve reached a point where sustainability is more marketing than mission.” This reflects the growing frustration within the ESG community. The proliferation of ESG ratings, reports, and certifications begs the question: Is ESG costing us or saving us? Are these just marketing tools, or do they truly signify progress?
4. Time to Rethink ESG Strategy, Not Scrap It
Despite his critiques, Elshout doesn’t suggest dismantling ESG efforts altogether. Instead, he calls for reform, urging that real ESG value will only emerge when it is integrated into core business strategies. Rather than leaving ESG to peripheral teams or consultants, it needs to be at the heart of decision-making. This raises a key question: Is ESG costing us or saving us? Only strategic integration can answer this question.
Community Reaction to “Is ESG Costing Us or Saving Us”
Elshout’s post generated a mix of applause, concern, and critical debate. One commenter remarked:
“Finally, someone calling out ESG greenwashing. This isn’t anti-sustainability—it’s pro-accountability.”
Others, particularly those working on ESG reporting, echoed similar thoughts:
“Half the time in ESG reporting is spent making things look good, not doing good.”
The post also spurred a flood of shared resources and tools designed to measure true ESG impact, indicating that there’s a real readiness to evolve and answer the question: Is ESG costing us or saving us?
Our Perspective on “Is ESG Costing Us or Saving Us?”
As legal and strategic advisors, we frequently see ESG obligations cropping up in everything from supplier audits to shareholder agreements. One major challenge is the lack of enforceable definitions in ESG contracts. Terms like “commit to responsible sourcing,” “align with SDG goals,” and “implement sustainable practices” are often vague and lack clear metrics. This makes them difficult to audit, enforce, or litigate.
Ray’s post underscores a crucial point: ESG without clarity is not only a risk to corporate integrity—it’s a legal liability. Investors and regulators are increasingly demanding precision. To that end, ESG frameworks, clauses, and KPIs must be as rigorously defined as financial forecasts or intellectual property protections. This brings us back to the question: Is ESG costing us or saving us? Without precise commitments, it’s hard to answer definitively.
We advise clients to treat ESG not as a marketing line but as a contractual commitment. This means defining what “green” means in supplier agreements, what “inclusive hiring” means in policies, and what “net zero” means across jurisdictions.
Call to Reflection: Is ESG Costing Us or Saving Us?
If you’re a founder, advisor, or investor, ask yourself:
- Is ESG a line item on your budget… or is it on your balance sheet?
- Is ESG just a report… or is it a result?
- And if regulators came knocking, would your ESG commitments hold up in court… or just in your next brochure?
Ray Elshout’s post reminds us that ESG isn’t dead, but it’s certainly in need of a reality check.
Leave a Reply