You can agree or not with this article, but I am sharing it to highlight few points for considerations:
How can an oil and gas company or a water intensive company (beverage company) be ranked high in sustainability. Someone may say why not if these companies are generating 100% renewable energy and recycling 100% its waste. Then I say the problem is in the definition of what make a sustainable company and sustainable business model.
Should the ESG criteria for investing be similar in all markets? If we assume beverage companies are OK to operate in countries with plenty of water, this does not mean this company should operate in countries where people walk for 3-10 kilometres to get water?
A beverage company can make drinks using a totally sustainable process providing (1) the source materials are all totally renewable by being 100% part of the planet's hydrological and biological cycles, and (2) all waste can be reconverted into useful material for other processes using only available renewable energy. That's the basic definition of the sustainability of a process.
Greed-prompted "greenwashing" is the correct assessment.
With all due respect to our philosopher colleague, there is, or should be, an awful lot more to sustainability than the two criteria cited. What about the human health effects of the stuff these companies peddle? Or of the notorious practices of the US sugar industry on which most of the American cola firms depend?
Sustainability criteria should definitely, complicatingly, vary from place to place. Being a conventional carnivore in most of the world is grossly unsustainable. Insisting on vegetarian fare above the treeline or in polar regions would be, also.