Sorry, but the term ESG is largely meaningless. The one true paragraph in that article is quoted as follows:
Definitions of “ESG” are wide-ranging. The inherently subjective nature can make these factors hard to quantify — my good could be your bad.
PM and MO are doing all sorts of ESG stuff already. Every other single company in the S&P 500 is too. Some people probably already include PM in those ESG "investment" amounts.
In truth, there is no company in the US that doesn't take environmental factors into consideration in how they operate. There is no company in the US that doesn't take societal factors into consideration in how they operate. There is no company in the US that doesn't take governance factors into consideration in how they operate. In order to operate legally in the US and around the world, your company has been lawfully required to do all sorts of things in those areas for the past 100 years.
So all we are really taking about is some non-profit groups arbitrarily assigning ESG scores to companies, and then claiming that every investment in such companies with particular scores is an ESG investment. And if a different non-profit assigns a different score, your company might an ESG investment to them but not the first non-profit. Obviously that tells you little to nothing.
For a evaluating score to mean something, it must have consistent criteria that are acknowledged by everyone. A credit score means something because the rating factors are not arbitrary. They relate to objective truths such as how much net worth you have, how much liquidity you have, how much debt, how consistently you pay your bills, etc.
But let's even say that eventually ESG criteria can be standardized so that everyone understands what the score means. It still is largely marketing fluff. As soon as a ESG-approved company starts losing money or doing poorly, the shareholders are going to dump it no matter what their ESG score is. Ultimately, all the shareholders care about is profits and returns.