Sustainable Investing Failed Its First Big Test
Kanebridge News
    HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $1,655,505 (-0.06%)       Melbourne $994,898 (+0.02%)       Brisbane $991,841 (+1.33%)       Adelaide $889,373 (+1.26%)       Perth $861,566 (+0.49%)       Hobart $729,893 (-1.65%)       Darwin $669,344 (+0.35%)       Canberra $999,769 (+1.27%)       National $1,055,910 (+0.34%)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $749,436 (-0.10%)       Melbourne $494,327 (+0.46%)       Brisbane $554,094 (+2.77%)       Adelaide $439,361 (-1.14%)       Perth $456,655 (-0.27%)       Hobart $524,871 (-0.43%)       Darwin $349,455 (+1.52%)       Canberra $494,554 (-1.96%)       National $530,871 (+0.07%)                HOUSES FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 10,048 (-72)       Melbourne 14,823 (-272)       Brisbane 7,999 (+9)       Adelaide 2,372 (-66)       Perth 6,238 (-89)       Hobart 1,265 (-29)       Darwin 232 (-6)       Canberra 1,020 (0)       National 43,997 (-525)                UNITS FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 8,719 (-61)       Melbourne 8,033 (-189)       Brisbane 1,615 (-4)       Adelaide 391 (-5)       Perth 1,570 (-29)       Hobart 203 (-10)       Darwin 394 (-6)       Canberra 1,010 (+7)       National 21,935 (-297)                HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $820 ($0)       Melbourne $600 (-$10)       Brisbane $640 ($0)       Adelaide $610 ($0)       Perth $670 ($0)       Hobart $550 ($0)       Darwin $700 ($0)       Canberra $680 ($0)       National $668 (-$1)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $750 (-$25)       Melbourne $550 ($0)       Brisbane $630 ($0)       Adelaide $500 ($0)       Perth $640 (+$13)       Hobart $450 ($0)       Darwin $513 (+$13)       Canberra $570 ($0)       National $589 (-$2)                HOUSES FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 5,497 (+71)       Melbourne 5,818 (+35)       Brisbane 4,141 (+99)       Adelaide 1,399 (0)       Perth 2,377 (+32)       Hobart 400 (+17)       Darwin 111 (+17)       Canberra 604 (+9)       National 20,347 (+280)                UNITS FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,083 (+248)       Melbourne 4,637 (+100)       Brisbane 2,182 (-27)       Adelaide 393 (+2)       Perth 731 (-10)       Hobart 130 (-7)       Darwin 144 (-8)       Canberra 684 (+72)       National 17,984 (+370)                HOUSE ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND       Sydney 2.58% (↑)        Melbourne 3.14% (↓)       Brisbane 3.36% (↓)       Adelaide 3.57% (↓)       Perth 4.04% (↓)     Hobart 3.92% (↑)        Darwin 5.44% (↓)       Canberra 3.54% (↓)       National 3.29% (↓)            UNIT ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND         Sydney 5.20% (↓)       Melbourne 5.79% (↓)       Brisbane 5.91% (↓)     Adelaide 5.92% (↑)      Perth 7.29% (↑)      Hobart 4.46% (↑)      Darwin 7.63% (↑)      Canberra 5.99% (↑)        National 5.77% (↓)            HOUSE RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 0.8% (↑)      Melbourne 0.7% (↑)      Brisbane 0.7% (↑)      Adelaide 0.4% (↑)      Perth 0.4% (↑)      Hobart 0.9% (↑)      Darwin 0.8% (↑)      Canberra 1.0% (↑)      National 0.7% (↑)             UNIT RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 0.9% (↑)      Melbourne 1.1% (↑)      Brisbane 1.0% (↑)      Adelaide 0.5% (↑)      Perth 0.5% (↑)      Hobart 1.4% (↑)      Darwin 1.7% (↑)      Canberra 1.4% (↑)      National 1.1% (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL HOUSES AND TREND       Sydney 30.3 (↑)      Melbourne 31.5 (↑)      Brisbane 31.7 (↑)        Adelaide 25.7 (↓)     Perth 35.4 (↑)      Hobart 33.7 (↑)        Darwin 36.2 (↓)     Canberra 32.0 (↑)        National 32.1 (↓)            AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL UNITS AND TREND       Sydney 31.3 (↑)      Melbourne 31.9 (↑)      Brisbane 32.1 (↑)        Adelaide 24.8 (↓)       Perth 38.7 (↓)     Hobart 37.6 (↑)        Darwin 46.5 (↓)     Canberra 39.2 (↑)        National 35.3 (↓)           
Share Button

Sustainable Investing Failed Its First Big Test

Is a reckoning coming?

By Lauren Foster
Fri, Apr 22, 2022 9:34amGrey Clock 11 min

The past few years have seen an explosion of interest in investing based on environmental, social, and governance factors, or ESG. Lured by the promise of doing well by doing good, investors poured billions of dollars into ESG strategies, turning the acronym into one of Wall Street’s favourite buzzwords.

As the approach soared in popularity, investment companies large and small seized the opportunity to design and market new ESG funds and rankings. Professionally managed assets with ESG mandates swelled to $46 trillion globally in 2021, representing nearly 40% of all assets under management, according to Deloitte’s Center for Financial Services. By 2024, that figure is forecast to rise to $80 trillion, or more than half of all professionally managed assets.

Now, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has created the first real test for this popular investment trend. By eschewing traditional energy stocks and defence shares, which are having a banner year, and embracing low-carbon-footprint technology stocks, which aren’t, many ESG funds lost money in the first quarter, and underperformed their benchmarks.

One quarter isn’t indicative of a long-term trend, but the poor performance has pointed out some of the weaknesses inherent in this investment approach, and offered fresh ammunition to critics, of whom there are many. It also suggests that ESG strategies, often focused on environmental issues, need a rethink, with more emphasis placed on social factors, especially in light of Europe’s growing humanitarian crisis.

“There is going to be a reckoning in ESG,” says Jason Saul, executive director of the Center for Impact Sciences at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. “ESG is an investment thesis that needs to evolve with the times.”

Aswath Damodaran, a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, and an expert in equity valuation, calls the Russia-Ukraine war the first of many tests that are going to come” for ESG. One of Damodaran’s chief criticisms is that the industry has oversold outperformance, when almost all of the returns in ESG strategies could be attributed to funds’ tech focus and avoidance of fossil-fuel stocks, poor performers until the past year.

Some investors have embraced ESG as a moral imperative, but many of the strategy’s fans have invested in ESG-oriented or “sustainable” funds—the terms are often used interchangeably—in the belief that companies that adhere to good environmental, social, and governance practices may outperform those that don’t. Investors worried about sacrificing returns could find reassurance in ESG’s report card: In the decade from 2012 to 2021, all large-cap U.S. stock funds returned an annualized 14.87%, while the ESG-focused funds in that group returned 15.58%, according to data from Morningstar Direct.

Both groups, however, failed to outpace the broader market, as measured by the S&P 500 index, which returned 16.55% a year during the same period.

But that doesn’t mean investors didn’t do well. On an asset-weighted basis, large-cap ESG funds delivered an annualized 16.49% per invested dollar, almost on par with the S&P 500, according to Morningstar Direct.

The outperformance of ESG was even more striking in the past two years. In 2020 and 2021, all large-cap U.S. stock funds returned 23.39% a year per invested dollar, largely the same as the S&P 500. But ESG-focused large-cap funds returned 25.19%.

This year tells a different story, however. In the first quarter, all large-cap U.S. stock funds fell an average of 5.6% on an asset-weighted basis, according to Morningstar. The ESG funds in the group fell almost 7% in the three months ended on March 31.

“We’re kind of in a shakeout, and ESG will likely get its nose bloodied a little,” says Matt Orsagh, a senior director of capital-markets policy at the CFA Institute, the global association of investment professionals.

Inflation is perhaps the biggest culprit in ESG funds’ recent underperformance. U.S. inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, surged at an annual pace of 8.5% in March—the seventh straight monthly increase and the country’s highest inflation rate in more than 40 years.

March CPI rose 1.2%, the Department of Labor reported on Tuesday, up from 0.8% in February. Gasoline, shelter, and food costs contributed the most to headline inflation: Gas prices rose 18.3% in the month.

The war in Ukraine, now in its second month, has contributed to the rise in energy and other commodity prices, aggravating global inflation. Brent crude, the international benchmark for oil prices, is up more than 40% year to date, with the rally underpinning a total return of 45% in the Energy Select Sector SPDR exchange-traded fund (ticker: XLE).

Yet many ESG funds are underweight oil and gas stocks, which typically don’t make it past their screens due to the industry’s climate-unfriendly characteristics. Environmental, social, and governance funds around the globe that report holdings monthly had only a 1.5% weighting in energy as of February, versus 4% for all stock funds, according to EPFR Global, which tracks fund flows and holdings.

Technology, on the other hand, has been a favorite of global ESG funds, accounting for more than 25% of their total assets as of Feb. 28, according to EPFR. That’s nearly two percentage points more than tech’s exposure in all stock funds. But tech stocks, and growth stocks generally, had a troubled first quarter as the Federal Reserve raised interest rates for the first time since 2018. The Technology Sector Select SPDR ETF (XLK), a proxy for the sector, lost almost 9%. Microsoft (MSFT), one of its top holdings, is an ESG fund favorite.

ESG’s underperformance “is going to be the steady state,” Damodaran says.

Ken Pucker, a senior lecturer at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, is in Damodaran’s camp on this subject. He says that ESG funds don’t systematically deliver alpha, or the excess return of an investment, relative to the return of a benchmark index. He also contends that they oversell outperformance and charge higher fees compared with plain-vanilla funds.

In a recent essay published in Institutional Investor, Pucker and co-author Andrew King, a professor at the Questrom School of Business at Boston University, discussed interviewing more than a dozen investment professionals to investigate their claims that a focus on ESG produces higher profits, signals higher stock returns, lowers capital costs, and benefits from investment flows. Pucker and King concluded, “The logic and evidence for assurances of ESG-driven alpha are lacking. Indeed, it is our best guess that flows of money into ESG funds represent a marketing-induced trend that will neither benefit the planet nor provide investors with higher returns.”

To be sure, ESG managers and advocates disagree. They note that the strategy aims to deliver long-term value, and that all investment styles have stretches of underperformance. Amber Fairbanks, a portfolio manager at Mirova US, the sustainable-investing affiliate of Natixis Investment Managers, acknowledges that ESG managers have underperformed fairly significantly, year to date, but says that “the underlying conviction is really on the longer term, and that’s where, as an ESG manager, we’re looking to outperform.”

“What strategy doesn’t have a poor one or two quarters?” says Emily Chew, executive vice president and chief responsible-investment officer of Calvert Research and Management, the sustainability powerhouse owned by Eaton Vance. “ESG remains a very robust framework for thinking about the overall context in which a company is operating.”

Critics have long argued that investors are overpaying for ESG products. It isn’t that the funds charge more than their peers: According to Morningstar Direct, actively managed stock funds in the U.S. had an average net expense ratio of 1.12% as of February 2022, while the ESG funds in the group charged an average of 1.04%. Similarly, index-tracking sustainable funds have slightly lower average costs than all passive stock funds.

But ESG investors seem more willing to pay higher expenses than investors overall. On an asset-weighted basis, investors in all active stock funds pay 0.67% for each dollar invested, and investors in ESG funds, 0.78%. Among index funds, the gap is even wider. On the same basis, the expense ratio for passive ESG funds, at 0.25%, is more than twice the average for all passive stock funds.

ESG has deep roots in Europe, where politicians have long pushed for rules to bring companies in line with the European Union’s long-term carbon neutrality target. In the U.S., critics dismissed the focus as a fad. But the strategy gained momentum here in 2019 and 2020, as headlines about extreme-weather events, the Covid-19 pandemic, and social-justice issues, including those highlighted by the death of George Floyd in police custody, prompted many investors to focus more on environmental and social problems.

Last year saw record net inflows of $69.2 billion into sustainable open-end and exchange-traded funds available to U.S. investors, a 35% increase over the previous record set the year before, according to Morningstar. Observers proclaimed that ESG had finally moved into the mainstream.

In fact, the seeds had been sown years before. ESG trailblazer Amy Domini co-founded KLD Research & Analytics in 1990, and created the Domini 400 Social Index. Soon after, she launched a passive U.S. equity fund pegged to the index. The firm and its flagship index are now owned by MSCI (MSCI), the largest ESG rating company. The fund converted to an active strategy, via the Domini Impact Equity fund (DSEPX), in 2006. Last year, it returned 21.3% but is down 12% this year.

MSCI declined to comment for this article.

CFA’s Orsagh remembers when the ESG acronym was coined in 2005. In the early 2000s, he worked at GovernanceMetrics International, now part of MSCI. He says ESG was born of the need to integrate nonfinancial information into the investment process. “ESG is an ethos; it’s not an investment style,” he says. “It was meant to find ways for investors to have better information to efficiently allocate capital.”

Over the years, it became synonymous in some investors’ minds with the catchphrase “doing well by doing good.” For others, it is regarded primarily as a risk-mitigation strategy. Semantics aside, the strategy got a big boost when one of the best-known names in finance—Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock (BLK), the world’s largest asset manager—took the bullhorn.

In his 2018 letter to CEOs, Fink implored other chief executives to be more thoughtful about their roles. “Society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose,” he wrote. “To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society.”

Later that year, Fink signaled that the industry was at an inflection point. “I do believe that the demand for ESG is going to transform all investing,” he said, referring to both passive and active investors. “That may be one or five years away from now, but it’s not that far away.”

That year, sustainable mutual and exchange-traded funds in the U.S. held US$89 billion in assets, according to Morningstar. At the end of 2021, just three years later, that number had ballooned to $360 billion. Still, that’s just a sliver of the $28 trillion in total U.S. fund assets.

During BlackRock’s first-quarter earnings call on Wednesday, Fink reiterated the company’s commitment to sustainable investing. He acknowledged during the Q&A portion of the call the “severe impact” that higher energy prices and inflation have had on many people, but said this doesn’t change “the long-term nature of ESG.”

Fink cited first-quarter fund flows as evidence, saying, “We had about $19 billion of sustainable flows. Obviously, that’s down from prior quarters, but certainly up from two years ago.”

BlackRock declined to make executives available for an interview, referring Barron’s instead to Fink’s 2022 letter to shareholders.

As environmental, social, and governance assets under management have swelled in the U.S., so have investors’ choices. According to ISS Market Intelligence, fund firms launched a record 133 ESG funds in 2021. That’s up from the 75 that debuted in 2020.

Ironically, given the growth in products, there is no established standard for what constitutes ESG investing—and no standard-setting organization. Even the two dominant U.S. ratings companies—MSCI and Morningstar, which owns Sustainalytics, an ESG ratings and research firm—differ somewhat in their approach. Sustainalytics’ ESG Risk Ratings measures a company’s exposure to industry-specific material ESG risks and how well the company is managing those risks. MSCI ESG Ratings measures a company’s exposure to ESG risks and how well the company manages those risks, relative to peers.

Jon Hale, head of sustainability research at Morningstar, agrees that the terminology around ESG and sustainability is fraught. “I tend to use ‘sustainable investing’ as an umbrella term to refer to a range of investment approaches that seek to both deliver competitive investment returns and positive ESG outcomes,” he says.

“There’s a multitude of rating agencies out there,” says Douglas Chia, president of consulting firm Soundboard Governance, who notes that investors are starting to ask more questions about the rating methodologies, how the firms are collecting the information, and what the information actually means. “To determine the quality of the disclosures that ratings agencies are evaluating, you do have to have metrics, and they have to be required, so that they are comparable and auditable, or attestable, or something like that,” he adds. “And that’s what the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] is attempting to do, and what a lot of jurisdictions are attempting to do.”

The SEC proposed new rules in March that would require U.S. public companies to report their greenhouse-gas emissions, along with details of how climate change is affecting their businesses.

In its report, ISS MI found that fund managers courted ESG investors by adding environmental, social, and governance criteria to funds already in the market. The number of funds adding such language peaked in 2020, with 200, representing nearly $1 trillion in assets under management, the firm said. Last year, 136 funds, representing about $300 billion in AUM, began using ESG criteria in some fashion.

Today, the sector has effectively become an industry—or Big ESG, as Chia says—encompassing asset managers, proxy advisors, ratings firms, consultants, and others. And it continues to grow: PwC, the business-services firm, announced plans last year to create 100,000 net new jobs in the next five years with an emphasis on “hiring specialists in critical areas, many related to ESG, including climate, supply chain, and leadership and change.” It has also created an ESG Academy for its workforce to raise awareness of and insight into ESG principles.

This past week, Deloitte said that it is committing $1 billion to expand its sustainability and climate practice and launching the new Deloitte Center for Sustainable Progress, or DCSP.

There is plenty of momentum and marketing muscle behind ESG, and a generation of mostly younger investors who care deeply about the planet and social issues. But investors’ appetite for underperformance could be tested in the coming months.

“ESG overpromised, and nothing focuses people’s minds like a quarter of underperformance on the thesis that they’ve been buying into,” says Orsagh. If the underperformance drags on, some ESG investors will probably look elsewhere for returns. In the near term, they might need to rethink the companies they are willing to invest in.

Zhihan Ma, global head of ESG and senior ESG analyst at Bernstein, says that the war in Ukraine and persistently high inflation are challenging the conventional wisdom about sustainable investing. “On the one hand, the conventional wisdom says you get impact and returns, and on the other hand, it says ESG investing is about investing in best-of-class names,” Ma says, referring to companies with high ESG scores, typically in the tech sector. “But investing in best-in-class names may not get you impact and returns at the same time in all market conditions.”

Ma is sanguine about the long-term prospects for ESG. “We’re not going to solve climate change overnight; we’re not going to solve rising inequalities overnight,” she says. “There are systemic issues in society that all stakeholders, regulators, investors, consumers, companies will need to work on together to address, which means that all these considerations are here to stay.”

She says the “S,” or social issues, became a more pressing concern during the peak of the Covid pandemic, and amid rising racial tensions. “We could see more interest in the S if the war leads to a prolonged humanitarian crisis,” she says.

One challenge is measuring the S, which seems even more complicated than quantifying environmental impact and risks. BNP Paribas’ 2021 ESG Global Survey found that 51% of respondents said the S is the most difficult ESG concept to analyse and embed in investment strategies. “Data [are] more difficult to come by, and there is an acute lack of standardization around social metrics,” the report said. “This comes at a time when the social component is of growing importance to end investors.”

Saul, at the Center for Impact Studies, tackled the topic in a recent paper titled “Fixing the S in ESG.” He wrote: “To be relevant, the ESG field must modernize the way it measures S factors.”

This requires an objective standard for reporting social outcomes, which has been lacking to date. Then, once the impacts are standardized and classified, they must be verified by an independent body. And third, there needs to be better reporting.

To elevate the importance of S, companies need to move beyond a check-the-box exercise. Saul says that they should start reporting social impact data consistently. Environmental, social, and governance investors should start asking for and requiring S impact data, and ESG rating firms, standard-setting bodies, and data providers should align with a specialized S data provider to improve the value of their data.

He says that the group’s performance has suffered since the start of the Ukraine war because the industry is “monocularly tied to E and investors haven’t given enough consideration to the importance of S.” ESG, he adds, “has to be based on something more substantial than just quantifying carbon and E.”

Kathryn McDonald, co-founder of RadiantESG Global Investors and head of investments and sustainability, says there has rightly been an emphasis on environmental issues, given the existential threat posed by climate catastrophes. But it is becoming clear that “social challenges give rise to myriad risks affecting our investments and our economy more generally,” she says. ‘These threats aren’t on the distant horizon. They are with us now.”

ESG has captured investors’ attention and that of Wall Street, and interest in this investment approach—not to mention the apparatus built to support it—isn’t going to disappear. But the strategy could face more tests in coming quarters and years, due to market swings, investor biases, and the inherent challenges of defining and measuring environmental, social, and governance impact and risk. How ESG funds perform ultimately will determine whether the concept flourishes and is enshrined in mainstream investing—or whether it becomes a passing fad.

Reprinted by permission of Barron’s. Copyright 2021 Dow Jones & Company. Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. Original date of publication: April 17, 2022.


This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan

35 North Street Windsor

Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.

Related Stories
The Loneliness of the American Worker
By TE-PING CHEN 29/05/2024
Boost for World Economy as U.S., Eurozone Accelerate in Tandem
By JOSHUA KIRBY 25/05/2024
Young Australians cut back on essentials while Baby Boomers spend freely
By Bronwyn Allen 24/05/2024
The Loneliness of the American Worker

More meetings and faceless chats. Fewer work friends. How the modern workday is fueling an epidemic of isolation.

Wed, May 29, 2024 6 min

More Americans are profoundly lonely, and the way they work—more digitally linked but less personally connected—is deepening that sense of isolation.

Nick Skarda , 29 years old, works two jobs in logistics and office administration in San Diego to keep up with his bills. After a couple of years at the logistics job, he has one friend there. He says hi to co-workers at his office job but doesn’t really know any.

“I feel sort of an emptiness or lack of belonging,” he says. Juggling two jobs leaves Skarda exhausted, with little energy or time to grab drinks with co-workers . “It makes it harder to go in and give it your all if you don’t feel like anyone is there rooting for you,” he adds.

Employers and researchers are just beginning to understand how workplace shifts over the past four years are contributing to what the U.S. surgeon general declared a loneliness health epidemic last year. The alienation affects remote and in-person workers alike. Among ’s 5,000 hybrid and fully on-site employees, for instance, the most popular community chat group offered by a company mental-health provider is simply called “Loneliness.”

Consider these phenomena of modern work:

It is a marked shift from even a decade ago, when bonds fostered at work helped compensate for declining participation in church , community groups and other social institutions. As the American workday becomes more faceless and scheduled , the number of U.S. adults who call themselves lonely has climbed to 58% from 46% in 2018, according to a recent Cigna poll of 10,000 Americans.

The faceless workday

The disconnection is driving up staff turnover and worker absences, making it a business issue for more employers, executives and researchers say. Cigna, the health-insurance company, estimates that loneliness is costing companies $154 billion a year in absenteeism alone.

“Work is social, it’s a lot more than a paycheck,” says James McCann , founder and chairman of

Earlier this year, moved from three days in the office to four to boost a sense of connectivity among workers. It has also begun tapping workers across teams to serve as designated hosts during lunchtime, encouraging people to sit with colleagues they don’t know in common areas and chat, and suggesting conversation topics.

While today’s workers have more ways to connect than ever, “there are only so many memes and jokes you can send over Slack,” says Maëlle Gavet , chief executive of Techstars, a pre-seed fund that has invested in 4,100 startups. “We tend to have more and more people with back-to-back calendars, more meetings and less connections.”

Gavet says that is especially the case for hybrid workers on in-office days, which they tend to use to dash from one meeting to the next.

Paradoxically, meetings can make people feel lonelier—and even more so if the meetings are virtual, behavioural researchers say. A 2023 survey by employee experience and analytics company Perceptyx found people who described themselves as “very lonely” tended to have heavier meeting loads than less-lonely staffers. More than 40% of those people spent more than half their work hours in meetings.

In Cincinnati, Kelly Roehm says she came to chafe at the meetings—sometimes as many as 12—consuming her day after joining a consulting company in 2021. She would often feel her eyes glazing over as she multitasked on other screens.

“It’s like you’re a zombie, there but not there,” says Roehm, who lived 10 minutes from the office but worked mostly remotely because she says few colleagues typically came in. It is a more common setup as companies distribute teams across more locations: At Microsoft , 27% of the company’s teams all worked in the same location last year, compared with 61% in 2019.

She compares that experience with her time more than a decade ago at a company now owned by AstraZeneca . There, she enjoyed lots of social outlets at work: a Weight Watchers group and a lunchtime crochet club.

“Now if I were to think about asking, ‘Hey, do you want to participate in something like this,’ it would just sound weird,” says Roehm, who left this year to focus on her own career-consulting business. “There wasn’t that emotional attachment that made it difficult to say, it’s time to move on.”

The power of small talk

Office chitchat, sometimes an unwanted distraction, seems to provide more benefits than many people realise, says Jessica Methot , an associate professor at Rutgers University who studies social ties at work.

In a study of 100 employees at different workplaces, Methot and fellow researchers surveyed participants at points throughout the day. They found those who had engaged in small talk reported less stress and more positivity toward co-workers.

Even exchanging pleasantries with a co-worker you barely know can help, says Sarah Wright , an associate professor at New Zealand’s University of Canterbury who studies worker loneliness.

“We used to think loneliness has to be overcome by developing meaningful relationships and having that degree of intimacy,” Wright says. “More and more, though, we’re seeing it’s these day-to-day weak ties and frequency of [interactions] with people that matters.”

Such interactions are substantially harder to replicate in a virtual environment. “The default now is, I have to schedule time with you, even if it’s five minutes, instead of just picking up the phone,” says Katie Tyson , president of Hive Brands, an online food retailer founded in 2020 as a fully remote company.

The frictions add up, she says. Last fall, the company added an office in New York where employees voluntarily gather a couple of times a week to foster more cohesion.

Coming to the office, even on a hybrid basis, tends to yield a roughly 20% to 30% boost in serendipitous connections, according to Syndezo, which analysed survey data and email and messaging traffic from more than two dozen large companies.

Yet there are diminishing returns to time in person, says Philip Arkcoll , founder of Worklytics, which analyses workforce data for Fortune 500 companies. Coming in once a month provides a significant boost in ties; two or three times a month adds a little more, Worklytics data show. Once or twice a week results in a smaller increase, though, and working in-person four or five days a week makes almost no difference.

A business priority

Ernst & Young has asked managers to use the first five minutes of team calls to engage in conversation “as real human beings,” says Frank Giampietro , whose title, chief well-being officer for the Americas, was created in 2021 to help support employees during the pandemic.

The professional-services firm is also training employees to spot and reach out to co-workers struggling with issues such as isolation. To date, more than 1,600 employees have taken the training.

One challenge is that American workers have sacrificed connection for productivity, says Julie Rice , co-founder of fitness chain SoulCycle. These days, with more business contacts preferring video calls, she finds breakfast meetings and coffee dates on her calendar have been replaced with Zoom. Though efficient, such video calls are less likely to yield conversations that can turn into useful professional connections or lasting friendships, she says.

Julie Rice says that her work schedule, once packed with coffees and in-person meetups, is now an avalanche of Zooms. PHOTO: CHRISTOPHER GREGORY-RIVERA FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

“Even people I’m meeting with here in New York, we’ll just Zoom,” she says.

Last year, Rice co-founded Peoplehood, a company that runs “gathers” to improve connectivity and relationship skills, and employers are signing up. One, a beauty-services business with hundreds of field employees who never see each other, asked Peoplehood to host a series of gatherings for workers to meet and share job advice. Another, a marketing company with far-flung employees, requested help after surveys showed staff wanted to feel more connected.

“Whatever relationships we had pre-Covid have sort of run out of gas,” Rice says.

Good luck prodding employees to socialise, though. Nearly all the 150-odd staff at the Pleasanton, Calif., headquarters of Shaklee, the nutrition-supplements company, used to attend annual Earth Day gatherings, which involved community service, lunch and breaking early for the day, says Jonathan Ramot , the company’s North American human-resources director. Office happy hours, bowling outings and “mix and mingles” were also robustly attended.

Now that the workforce has gone remote, last year’s Earth Day event attracted 20 staffers, even though most workers live nearby.

“We have a lot of people asking for in-person events, but when we plan them, they don’t show up,” Ramot says. “Then they complain they’re lonely.”

This past April, Shaklee instead held a mandatory get-together with the chief executive, who had relocated to Florida during the pandemic and was in town. About 100 employees gathered at a brewery for food, drinks and conversation—and no speeches from the bosses.

There was a buzz in the air, Ramot says, as staff hugged and delighted in seeing each other, some for the first time. “People were saying, I miss this,” he says.


This stylish family home combines a classic palette and finishes with a flexible floorplan

35 North Street Windsor

Just 55 minutes from Sydney, make this your creative getaway located in the majestic Hawkesbury region.

Related Stories
Boost for World Economy as U.S., Eurozone Accelerate in Tandem
By JOSHUA KIRBY 25/05/2024
The suburbs where we’re building the most new homes
By Bronwyn Allen 28/05/2024
Judge Blocks Effort to Auction Graceland
By TALI ARBEL 26/05/2024
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop