[xorcist]

ESG is supposed to be about valuations, long-term. People conventiently tend to forget that when it doesn't suit them. It has been shown over and over again that it is a working predictor of valuation, in which it is not alone of course. Economy students regularly invent such predictors. And the dirty little secret about ESG is that it is probably G that is doing the heavy lifting. Companies without good governance seldom survive the first change of leadership.

No one in the green movement ever spoke about "ESG" as if that was a thing. It is an investor thing. Invented by bank economists, to sell financial products. It's not like your local environmentally concious hippie type figure would suddenly start investing in Shell, just because they improved their ESG score.

Does it work as a predictor for company valuation? It seems so. But it would probably have worked better if you separated E and G, because they have nothing to do with one another. Will it work in the future? No one knows. Once you start gaming these things, all initial bets are off by a lot.

Just don't say "valuation, not ESG". It does not make sense. If you mean "short term valuation, not long term", then just say so.