That follows more than two years of ESG bans and legal threats in mostly Republican states. How the ESG investment industry communicates its agenda in a GOP-dominated America will be crucial in shaping its survival.

So far, there has been “a lot of confusion and frankly a lot of laziness around definitions and the framing of these issues,” Simm said. “ESG as a phrase or label has been with us for far too long and needs to be replaced with clearer language.”

As the political environment grows increasingly hostile toward all things labeled ESG, those whose business depends on it are being told to quickly adapt. The day after the US election, analysts at Jefferies predicted ESG professionals will stop touting their efforts in terms that once defined their work.

Aniket Shah, the lead analyst of the Nov. 6 Jefferies note, said the ongoing backlash should result in a more “focused and pragmatic” approach to handling and talking about ESG.

Even before Trump’s election victory, efforts by GOP-led states to sue climate-finance alliances were forcing a rethink in the ESG industry. Maslansky + Partners, a New York-based consultancy that focuses on language use, warned last year that the words ESG professionals use risk “alienating half the population.”

And BDO, an international network of accounting and tax consultancies, said in September that ESG programs need to stop using “technical terms that can be hard to grasp” and instead start to “communicate in the language of the business” they serve.

Such tensions are also leaving their mark in Europe, which is home to more than 80% of the world’s ESG fund assets as well as being the fastest warming continent. Its landmark Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation now faces substantial revisions after investors complained it was unwieldy. Meanwhile, Morningstar Inc. estimates that European climate funds saw net outflows of about $20 billion in the nine months through September, marking a milestone for redemptions in the bloc.

Ultimately, the business case should speak for itself, Sumberg said.

“We’re not ignorant to the fact that if a different administration was in office, they probably would be more supportive,” he said. “But at the core of it, this is already profitable.”

Sumberg just oversaw a third green real estate deal this year for Steyer, with the purchase of an industrial property in New Jersey. The goals, as with the other properties Galvanize has bought, are lower energy costs and emissions, as well as higher property values. He cautions against assuming that a Trump presidency will coincide with a major retreat from green investing.

“The last time Trump was in power, the tax credits were extended for wind and solar,” he said. And Trump’s first presidency also coincided with a significant increase in energy-transition investments, he said.

“The reason wasn’t because the administration at that time was adding subsidies to that sector,” Sumberg said. “The reason was because it’s profitable.”

(Adds reference to EU regulations in 16th paragraph.)

Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek

• What Happens When US Hospitals Go Big on Nurse Practitioners

• Why the Flying Experience Feels So Much Worse

• Clear’s Dominance in Airports Could Be Coming to an End

• The Charm Bracelet Shop That Keeps Going Viral

• An Airline’s Florida Resort Dreams Look More Like a Nightmare

©2024 Bloomberg L.P.