by Mathis Wackernagel, Ph.D.
This version builds on the original blog here.
In just seven months, humanity consumes as much from nature as Earth can regenerate in an entire year. Therefore, Earth Overshoot Day, the day humanity’s demand for ecological resources exceeds what Earth can renew during that year falls on early August. This resource balance is tracked by the National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts, which use 15,000 data points per country and year, all sourced from United Nations statistics.
Despite global efforts to mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss, negative trends persist. Companies, cities and countries are often reluctant to counteract the overshoot trend due to a perceived “free-rider” dilemma. They believe their efforts would benefit humanity as a whole, while they alone would bear the costs. This misconception makes it difficult, for example, to persuade investors to support companies working to delay Earth Overshoot Day.
Many investors still assume that companies delaying Earth Overshoot Day would face unfair costs, seeing it as a mere good deed that would harm financial performance. However, this flawed perception blinds them to the direct risks beyond the free-rider dilemma. By ignoring these risks, their investments become more vulnerable and ill-suited for the predictable future of climate change and resource scarcity, leading to losses in the investment’s value. Such losses ultimately also harm society.
In reality, companies that address global overshoot are at less risk. Those that work to delay Earth Overshoot Day offer a compelling value proposition. Companies unprepared for the foreseeable challenges of climate change and resource limitations increasingly jeopardize their own ability to operate, thus acting against their self-interest.
Moreover, reducing global overshoot is not an abstract concept. A company’s contribution to global overshoot can be measured. After three decades of providing reliable data on country-level resource balances, a similar approach is now needed for companies.
The key question is: How much does a company reduce global overshoot per million dollars of market capitalization? In other words, if the company did not exist, where would global overshoot change per million dollars of market capitalization?
For most companies, their existence increases global overshoot, causing Earth Overshoot Day to arrive sooner. However, some companies—circular businesses—reduce global overshoot as they grow. One example is a German recycling company. For more inspiration, you can explore the Power of Possibility, which features over 100 such examples.
This is highly relevant to investors. Once individual companies are assessed, it becomes possible not only to measure a single company’s impact, but the effect of an entire portfolio on global overshoot per million dollars of investment.
I have yet to see an impact investment portfolio that actually reduces global overshoot. Should such funds even be called “impact funds”?
Even conventional portfolios could benefit from including companies that will retain value in a future marked by climate change and resource constraints—if only as a hedge. This isn’t just an ESG consideration; it’s a critical business necessity.
Additional Resources:
Power of Possibility examples
Overshoot impact of companies: How one can assess it
Analytical insights such assessments enable
For more detail, download the short piece below by Brad Hilsabeck and Mathis Wackernagel on implications for investors below. It is called "A New Climate for Investors."
Comments