Before ESG, There Was Just Care
Or, when doing the right thing did not require a framework.
Image: A gesture of care for nature. Image generated through AI.
Why did we need ESG?
It is a question that belongs to the present.
But perhaps the answer belongs to the past.
Our work is deeply connected to Italy - and with it, to stories.
Stories of entrepreneurs who built businesses in the years following the Second World War. Through proximity, through relationship.
They worked with nature, and understood that to use it meant also to preserve it.
They collected what others discarded - scraps, remnants, overlooked materials - and transformed them into objects of unexpected beauty.
They did not speak of sustainability.
They practiced it.
There were also stories of people.
Of employers who discovered that an employee had stolen - not out of greed, but because there was not enough food at home.
And instead of punishment, they offered a second chance. Sometimes even a raise, without ever exposing the dignity of the person involved.
Of businesses working with perishable goods, who quietly told their most vulnerable clients that certain items were “about to expire” - even when they were still perfectly good - so they could offer them for free without making anyone feel like they were receiving charity.
Not generosity as performance.
But as protection.
And there were those who grew.
Entrepreneurs who built larger ventures and chose - long before any regulation required it - to offer what today we would call “benefits”:
nurseries, books, training, places to rest, even moments of leisure.
Not as an incentive.
But as a way of sharing profit while recognising the human life behind the work.
They did more than the right thing.
They did the most human thing.
Even when nothing could be given back in return.
And then, over time, something began to shift.
A different model of entrepreneurship emerged - not everywhere, not always - but enough to reshape a part of the landscape.
One less rooted in proximity.
More distant, more fragmented.
A way of operating that, at times, began to exploit rather than to care.
Nature, people, attention.
Sometimes invisibly.
Sometimes in plain sight.
Doing the wrong thing - and trusting that time, scale, or resources would eventually dilute its consequences.
We now live in a world where information moves fast - and fades just as quickly.
Where perception can be managed.
Where reputation can, at times, be restored.
And perhaps, in this context, something that was once instinctive needed to be formalised.
This is where ESG enters the conversation.
A framework developed to guide environmental, social, and governance practices.
A language that seeks to define responsibility at scale.
Learn more about the UN Sustainable Development Goals:
And in many ways, it is necessary.
Because when responsibility is no longer embedded in proximity, it must be structured elsewhere.
But a question remains.
Can ethical behaviour be enforced?
Perhaps - to a certain extent.
If rules are shared, applied, and upheld consistently.
But regulation alone cannot replace intention.
What may be missing is not another framework, but a shift in how we define value.
Not only corporate profit.
But what might be called ESG profit: a measure that considers what a business gives back, protects, and sustains.
To look back is not to idealise.
But it may help us remember that responsibility was once not a strategy.
It was a way of being.
What would change if doing the right thing no longer required a framework?
We would be glad to read your thoughts.