Having recently discussed this with my advisory board, and had the time to really think about it, my feeling is that it ABSOLUTELY supports the S in ESG. Safe people are happier and healthier people. Like measuring environmental achievement and footprint with carbon credits, which has taken a few years to find a globally acceptable "standard" that everyone understands, the same it will be for Health, Safety and Wellbeing. If we start now, and find ways to measure our performance we will eventually land on a meaningful way to measure our performance on the S, alongside the E in our governance responsibilities. I for my part, am excited that finally business are being evaluated on more than financial performance. That's how business should be. Have a positive impact on the world, alongside financial success of course.

Thankfully no ESG window dressing here which I consider to be one of the best "make work" schemes around.

Safety practitioners should stay well clear.

Three pillars of sustainability: people, planet and profits.
H&S looks after the people side of things, pretty hard to have a sustainable business if you hurt, kill or maim your people while they are at work. Seems fairly straightforward to me.

Jane you nailed it. The Triple Bottom Line - People (your staff and their welfare), Planet (your impact on the environment) and Profit (meeting your investors/customers/consumers needs). There are global ISO standards that provide relevant management systems to achieve and prove this.

Three pillars of sustainability: people, planet and profits. — Jane

Jane you nailed it. The Triple Bottom Line - People (your staff and their welfare), Planet (your impact on the environment) and Profit (meeting your investors/customers/consumers needs). — Tony Walton

Is simplifying ESG to a triple bottom line of "People, Planet, Profit" missing a big part of the point that ESG is a separate way to evaluate a prospective (or current) investment to limit the risk of investing into a business which looks good by the numbers - but is essentially achieving those numbers through unsustainable business practices? i.e making sure that the return on investment is not being made through screwing over the environment (E) or employees/suppliers/customers (S) or by lying to their shareholders (G).
Raising this point to make sure we don't loss sight of the for the reason separation between traditional economic assessment of an investment (e.g. profit/loss, share price, dividend yield, etc.) and ESG. And that with an increased focus on ESG over time it could actually allow us to transition away from GDP/growth being the main indicators of an economy's health towards an indicator of the actual social health of an economy - i.e. are we making the world a better place for all rather than is the world becoming richer, and then assuming that richer overall equates to better for all people (which is doesn't).