PSC vs
ESG Investing
ESG promised to make capitalism sustainable through better investment criteria. But what if the problem isn't which companies we invest in—but where returns flow?
What ESG Got Right
ESG investing recognized that capital allocation shapes the world. By screening for Environmental, Social, and Governance factors, investors could theoretically direct capital toward sustainable outcomes. This was a genuine insight: capital isn't neutral.
The ESG insight: Where we invest matters. But ESG optimizes the selection of investments while leaving the structureof capital unchanged. Returns still flow back to investors.
Why ESG Falls Short
Rating Inconsistency
Major ESG rating agencies (MSCI, Sustainalytics, Refinitiv) correlate at only 0.54—worse than credit ratings. Same company can be 'leader' and 'laggard' simultaneously.
Source: Berg et al. 2022
Greenwashing
ESG funds often hold the same companies as conventional funds. A 2022 study found 68% of 'sustainable' funds invested in fossil fuel companies.
Source: Morningstar 2022
Impact Dilution
ESG diverts investor capital but doesn't change company behavior—divested shares are simply bought by less scrupulous investors at a discount.
Source: Theory of Change
Short-Termism
ESG metrics optimise for quarterly reporting, not generational outcomes. Climate adaptation needs 50-100 year horizons.
Source: Temporal Mismatch
How PSC Solves This
Structural Impact
Impact isn't claimed—it's structural. The recycling rate (R) mathematically determines system value. No ratings agency needed.
Temporal Alignment
PSC operates on mission cycles, not reporting cycles. A 30-year infrastructure mission gets 30-year capital, not quarterly pressure.
Compounding Value
Instead of 5% annual returns, PSC achieves 6.67× system value multiplier through perpetual cycling. More impact per dollar, forever.
Beneficiary Agency
Beneficiaries aren't passive recipients—they're active participants who choose when and how to pay forward, building system ownership.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | ESG | PSC |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Mechanism | Screen investments by ESG criteria | Capital cycles through beneficiaries perpetually |
| Capital Destination | Returns flow to investors | Capital flows forward to next beneficiary |
| Impact Measurement | Third-party ratings (often inconsistent) | Built-in: recycling rate (R factor) |
| Greenwashing Risk | High—ratings vary 50%+ between agencies | Low—impact is structural, not claimed |
| Financial Returns | Yes (market-rate expected) | No financial returns to donor |
| Time Horizon | Quarterly/annual reporting cycles | Multi-generational (infinite cycles) |
| Beneficiary Agency | Indirect (via corporate behavior) | Direct (beneficiaries are system participants) |
| System Value (30 years) | ~$500K (invested $100K at 5.7% real) | ~$3.3M (32.9× via perpetual cycling) |
The Fundamental Difference
ESG asks: "Which companies should we invest in?"
PSC asks: "Where should returns flow?"
When returns flow back to investors, capital serves investors—regardless of ESG ratings. When returns flow forward to beneficiaries, capital serves mission. The structure of capital matters more than the selection criteria.