“The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress.”—Joseph Joubert

The back-and-forth debate about ESG investing to solve longstanding issues facing the planet and realize meaningful financial returns has led me—and a fair number of others, thankfully—to call for more transparency in disclosure so we can have meaningful decision-making and accountability. Today, we clearly don’t have the standardized metrics to give investors, regulators, and other concerned parties the depth of insight needed to evaluate a company’s success or shortcomings in areas of environmental-, social-, and governance-related matters. As the saying goes, if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.

Shouldn’t metrics on how companies value their employees and the environment be at least as rigorous as the financial reporting we see disclosed today?

When the financial services industry first considered expanding and standardizing reporting on credit exposure in public filings, all you heard was how difficult it would be to calculate and how it would be an undue burden. Fast forward a few decades and that disclosure has evolved to provide meaningful insights into how credit is managed, which has benefited both investors and companies managing that exposure.

So why is this debate about ESG still going on? One reason I think is that we as a people tend not to push for change absent a crisis.

“Resistance to ESG-related initiatives tends to pit short-term profitability against long-term benefit.”

Inside a disaster, clarification takes place, with anything superfluous pushed aside so we can deal with the immediate existential issue. Think about this recent pandemic. Companies with work-from-home policies already in place fared much better than those that didn’t. Working from home (WFH) wasn’t just a business continuity issue; it was a human resources matter, to allow employees greater flexibility, which benefitted far more than just working mothers. It was a tool to motivate employees and lower real-estate costs during peace time. But it took a pandemic to get WFH widely adopted. Another reason this debate drags on, I think, is because we’ve gotten stuck in an “either/or” mindset in a world far too complex for that kind of Manichean thinking.

Resistance to ESG-related initiatives tends to pit short-term profitability against long-term benefit. When it comes to increasing domestic energy production through existing infrastructure or pursuing more sustainable forms of power, do we want to be short-term profitable or do we want to heal the planet?

Look at the decades-old debate on diversity, which has so far produced insufficient progress. Do we want to be short-term profitable, or do we want to invest in programs that improve how we hire, train, and retain the best talent—as well as what “the best talent” really means? We can and must do both. And when we do both, let’s make sure we have consistent, reliable, transparent disclosures to measure how management teams are performing in these efforts.

Complex problems often require people with different skill sets and experiences to partner to create solutions. Many of these larger issues require collaboration between governments, businesses, and educators. Some of these issues will call for a change to take place on the playing field—something governments and regulators will have to address. Some change will have to take place in operating models—something CEOs and their boards will have to address. And change will have to take place in how we educate our workers, so novel technologies and the related employment opportunities can be viable more quickly—something employers and educators will need to tackle.

What I’m suggesting is a mindset that recognizes being stubborn and focusing exclusively on one side of an issue or the other won’t do. Our convictions should drive outcomes, not impasses. For example, we can reduce our reliance on Russian oil by increasing domestic production smartly, and also continue to invest in new technologies that may one day supplant the need for fossil fuels.

We are talking about reintroducing what seems to have become a radical notion of collaboration and constructive debate that employs nuanced and agile thinking. We can no longer afford polarized thinking and being pushed into consensus or substandard solutions only through calamity. Today’s leaders have unprecedented opportunities to make their companies, communities, and the environment better than they found it. So “pay for it now or pay for it later” when the price will likely be higher.

The views expressed are the author’s own, not in her capacity as FINRA chairperson.