ESG scores what an institution did. R* scores what it can survive.

5dimensions compared

56comparison routes on the site

R*the instrument, published and runnable

A comparison page is the easiest template to make dishonest, because the format invites a straw man. The rule here: the other side is described in the terms its own advocates would use, and the claim we make for ours is the one we can show evidence for.

Read this asNot a takedown. ESG measures practice and does it reasonably well. The argument is that practice and capacity are different quantities, and only one of them predicts survival.

Where each instrument sits. The two axes are the only real disagreement: what is measured, and which direction in time it looks. Everything in the table below follows from this position. Placement is argued, not measured.

Dimension	ESG metrics	R* Index
Time orientation	Backward-looking (past performance)	Forward-looking (regenerative capacity)
What it measures	Environmental, social, governance practices	Ability to persist and regenerate across cycles
Predictive power	Limited — scores past behaviour	Predicts institutional longevity
Gaming vulnerability	High — optimised for scores	Low — measures structural capacity
Time horizon	Annual reporting cycles	Multi-generational persistence

Can an institution score well on one and badly on the other?

Routinely, and in both directions. An organisation may report properly, hold good practices and still carry structural fragilities that threaten its survival — high ESG, low R*. The reverse also happens: a body with weak reporting and sound capital architecture will outlast its paperwork.

Where the rows come fromLifted from the live /compare/esg-vs-rstar page. Same content, no icons, no gradient panels, and the dimension column doing the structural work instead of colour.

Dimension

ESG metrics

R* Index

Time orientation

Backward-looking (past performance)

Forward-looking (regenerative capacity)

What it measures

Environmental, social, governance practices

Ability to persist and regenerate across cycles

Predictive power

Limited — scores past behaviour

Predicts institutional longevity

Gaming vulnerability

High — optimised for scores

Low — measures structural capacity

Time horizon

Annual reporting cycles

Multi-generational persistence