In reason years, many companies and some investors have embraced ESG (environmental, social and governance) objectives.  The move to embrace ESG has led to an "escalating backlash" according to The Conference Board.   Now, some are advancing an even more radical step - degrowth.

According to this article,  "sustainable degrowth" is "an equitable downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions at the local and global level, in the short and long term."   An obvious question is how could a director or investment adviser square degrowth with his or her fiduciary duty?  In a recent post on Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, Matt Orsagh poses but fails to answer this critical question.  

To date, I have found only a small handful of references to the term "degrowth" in filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  For example, the registration statement for one exchange-traded fund includes the following statement in its description of its Subversive Decarbonization ETF: "The Adviser believes lifestyle changes (degrowth, decarbonization) required to keep the earth within the last stages of a liveable climate are underway".  

[View source.]