A sovereign approach to ESG means adapting universal principles to the country’s unique context. This does not mean rejecting universally accepted ESG standards, but rather affirming that a “one size fits all” approach to implementing such standards is not always a good strategy.

In the case of Russia, its own approach to ESG may be expressed through increased attention to environmental issues in the context of the country’s significant reserves of natural resources, and an emphasized focus on corporate social responsibility, given the country’s historical and social specifics.

The idea of looking at ESG in the context of a distant past is probably a questionable proposition. However, if we look at the spirit and goals of ESG, namely environmental protection, social responsibility, and transparent governance, we can see that these principles can be traced in one form or another in the history of many countries, including Russia.

In Tsarist Russia, ESG pillars were certainly nowhere near as formalized as they are today, but several initiatives can be interpreted as early manifestations of ESG. For example, concern for nature manifested itself in the creation of nature reserves, such as the Barguzinsky Nature Reserve on Lake Baikal, established in 1917 to protect the seal and the Barguzin sable. At the same time, Tsarist Russia’s efforts to address social and governance issues were very limited; the pressing problems of social inequality and lack of democratic governance were at the root of the Russian Revolution of 1917.

The Soviet Union was very different. There were many social achievements: universal free education, free health care, job creation, development of industry and infrastructure. However, such “achievements” were often made at the expense of environmental damage, such as the massive pollution and ecological damage caused by the drying up of the Aral Sea, or the radioactive contamination after the Chernobyl disaster.

Russia’s current approach to ESG, as in many other countries, is the result of both global trends and specific national historical and cultural aspects. A country’s pursuit of developing its own approach to ESG is important. But it should not mean rejecting universal ESG principles or isolating itself from the global community. On the contrary, it should encourage a deeper and more elaborate application of ESG principles that takes into account the local context and promotes sustainable development at all levels, from local communities to the world.

There are both pros and cons of abandoning the Latin acronym ESG in Russia. The most important thing is that such a decision should be well-considered. Let’s start with the possible pros of dropping the Latin acronym ESG in Russia. The first benefit is cultural adaptation. Replacing the Latin acronym ESG with its Russian alternative will help make the concept of ESG more accessible and understandable to a broad Russian audience. Moreover, Russia, like any other country, has its own unique socio-economic and environmental challenges. Using a local term can help highlight these specific issues and perhaps better reflect local realities.

Now let’s look at the potential downsides. When it comes to international communication, ESG is a globally recognized standard, and dropping it can make it more difficult to communicate with and be understood by the international community. This could negatively affect the participation of Russian companies in ESG-based global investment flows and complicate sustainability cooperation. There is also a risk of misunderstanding, as the introduction of a new term can cause confusion, especially in the early stages when people are not used to the new term. From a resource perspective, developing and implementing a new term or standard requires a lot of effort and resources that could be more effectively spent on ESG projects.