Abstract:The number of public companies reporting ESG information grew from fewer than 20 in the early 1990s to 8,500 by 2014. Moreover, by the end of 2014, over 1,400 institutional investors that manage some $60 trillion in assets had signed the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI). Nevertheless, companies with high ESG “scores” have continued to be viewed by mainstream investors as unlikely to produce competitive shareholder returns, in part because of the findings of older studies showing low returns from the social responsibility investing of the 1990s. But studies of more recent periods suggest that companies with significant ESG programs have actually outperformed their competitors in a number of important ways. The authors’ aim in this article is to set the record straight on the financial performance of sustainable investing while also correcting a number of other widespread misconceptions about this rapidly growing set of principles and methods: Myth Number 1 : ESG programs reduce returns on capital and long‐run shareholder value. Reality : Companies committed to ESG are finding competitive advantages in product, labor, and capital markets; and portfolios that have integrated “material” ESG metrics have provided average returns to their investors that are superior to those of conventional portfolios, while exhibiting lower risk. Myth Number 2 : ESG is already well integrated into mainstream investment management. Reality : The UNPRI signatories have committed themselves only to adhering to a set of principles for responsible investment, a standard that falls well short of integrating ESG considerations into their investment decisions. Myth Number 3 : Companies cannot influence the kind of shareholders who buy their shares, and corporate managers must often sacrifice sustainability goals to meet the quarterly earnings targets of increasingly short‐term‐oriented investors. Reality : Companies that pursue major sustainability initiatives, and publicize them in integrated reports and other communications with investors, have also generally succeeded in attracting disproportionate numbers of longer‐term shareholders. Myth Number 4 : ESG data for fundamental analysis is scarce and unreliable. Reality : Thanks to the efforts of reporting and investor organizations such as SASB and Ceres, and of CDP data providers like Bloomberg and MSCI, much more “value‐relevant” ESG data on companies has become available in the past ten years. Myth Number 5 : ESG adds value almost entirely by limiting risks. Reality : Along with lower risk and a lower cost of capital, companies with high ESG scores have also experienced increases in operating efficiency and expansions into new markets. Myth Number 6 : Consideration of ESG factors might create a conflict with fiduciary duty for some investors. Reality : Many ESG factors have been shown to have positive correlations with corporate financial performance and value, prompting ERISA in 2015 to reverse its earlier instructions to pension funds about the legitimacy of taking account of “non‐financial” considerations when investing in companies.

RETHINKING CORPORATE PRIORITIES: THE SURGE OF ESG INVESTING AND GREENWASHING RISKS

Dilemma of ESG Development: Investors Perspectives

Following ESG Principles as one of the Key Business Factors

Greenwashing or Game Changer of Corporatesustainability: Impact on Environment, Society, and Governance (ESG)

Crosswashing in Sustainable Investing: Unveiling Strategic Practices Impacting ESG Scores

The Impact of ESG Factors on the Firm Performance

Stock Price Overreaction to ESG Controversies

ESG disclosures, green innovation, and greenwashing: All for sustainable development?

ESG Integration in Investment Management: Myths and Realities

Can green finance policy curb corporate ESG report "green washing"? — Experiential evidence from Chinese listed companies

Seeing through the haze: greenwashing and the cost of capital in technology firms

Does Investor Attention Affect Corporate Greenwashing? Evidence from China

Exploring Investment Optimization and “Greenwashing” from ESG Disclosure: A Dual Examination of Investor Perception

Sustainable Investment Practices: Assessing the Influence of ESG Factors on Financial Performance

Do Investors exaggerate corporate ESG information? Evidence of the ESG momentum effect in the Taiwanese market

Eco-Frauds: The Ethics and Impact of Corporate Greenwashing

Digital transformation and greenwashing in environmental, social, and governance disclosure: Does investor attention matter?

Does green finance really inhibit extreme hypocritical ESG risk? A greenwashing perspective exploration

Do pilot zones for green finance reform and innovation avoid ESG greenwashing? Evidence from China

Improving Corporate Performance through Stakeholder-Based ESG Practices

Risk governance for environmental, social, and governance investing and activities