A fun thing about the dotcom and crypto booms was how companies with no previous connection to dotcom or crypto added those terms to their names and watched their stock prices soar.
Perhaps the greatest example is Long Island Iced Tea Corp rebranding as Long Blockchain Corp in 2017, with a promise to shift from making Arnold Palmers to making crypto. This resulted in a 300 percent rally, years of investigations and no crypto.
In what might be a hopeful sign for the climate, if not for investors, it turns out green rebranding can also move stock prices.
Illustration: Mountain People
Companies that gave themselves new names that are “likely to evoke sustainable feelings in investors” between 2000 and 2022 enjoyed one-day returns of 15 percent, on average, a new study by the Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE showed.
The term “sustainable feelings” in this case refers not to everlasting love or an unquenchable thirst for revenge, but to a belief that a company is somehow involved in the business of sustainability. Words used most frequently in the new names included “green” (the runaway favorite), “water,” “solar,” “environment,” “wind” and “natural.”
The most iconic rebranding in the study was Brooklyn Cheesecake and Dessert Co becoming Meridian Waste Solutions Inc in 2015. The jokes practically write themselves, so I will not try, but this was a real business change involving a boring holding company with a funny name.
Anyway, a couple of important caveats here:
First, the effect only worked on companies that had never before been environmental. Otherwise, investors were not surprised enough to react.
For example, when Capstone Turbine Corp became Capstone Green Energy Corp three years ago, the stock price did basically nothing. The company was already making microturbines for distributed energy systems that are often powered by renewables, and it was starting to dabble in other clean tech. The name change made sense.
Similarly, Brooklyn Cheesecake and Dessert was already handling waste when it changed its name. I would love to see a canceled check made out to “Brooklyn Cheesecake and Dessert Company” with “garbage pickup” in the memo line.
Second, the stock price effect was reversed with prejudice if companies pulled a “Long Island Blockchain” and never got around to doing the green things promised by their name change.
Such companies suffered monthly returns that were 10 percent lower, on average, than before their rebranding, the study showed.
It turns out investors can be fooled by greenwashing for about a day, but get kind of mad about it once they discover it.
This is consistent with the findings of another recent study from the University of Florida, which found that companies facing high climate risks were punished by the market only if they were not bothering to address the problem. Ignoring climate change, in other words, is bad capitalism.
That is what makes all of this somewhat hopeful for the climate. In an era of Republicans taking a flamethrower to investing based on environmental, social and governance factors every chance they get — often focusing their rage on climate in particular — people have shown a tendency to vote against them with their dollars. The green transition’s ability to attract capital despite political friction is a strength.
That strength has been in question lately. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) investments have started to underperform the S&P 500 Index, stung by the political backlash and soaring interest rates that make capital-intensive green projects less appealing. Investors and governments pumped US$1.8 trillion into renewable energy last year, BloombergNEF said, but that is still far below the US$4.8 trillion needed annually between now and 2030 to help the world achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
At the same time, investors have proved they are willing to suffer some financial pain in exchange for the satisfaction of owning ESG investments.
They would pay 20 basis points more per year to invest in an ESG fund, a 2022 Harvard Business School study showed.
There is a risk of investors giving capital to greenwashers taking advantage of this sentiment. However, that risk mainly falls on anybody careless enough not to double check whether a company that has just changed its name to, like, Nature’s Environmental Green Bounty Inc, is not actually a coal miner. The market would move quickly on to (ahem) greener pastures.
The dotcom name trick did not last a decade, but green rebranding has already worked, more or less, for 20 years. An increasingly hot and chaotic climate is only raising the world’s urgency to throw more money at mitigating and adapting to the problem. Practically every company would have to go green eventually, regardless of its name.
Mark Gongloff is a Bloomberg Opinion editor and columnist covering climate change. He previously worked for Fortune.com, the Huffington Post and the Wall Street Journal.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS