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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS