That sounds like an argument that hypocrisy is trivial and has no meaning. Hypocrisy is a thing that impacts arguments because arguments are usually, by their

That sounds like an argument that hypocrisy is trivial and has no meaning. Hypocrisy is a thing that impacts arguments because arguments are usually, by their nature, somewhat subjective and based on many barely articulated judgements, the text of an argument being something of a gloss over the thinking that we hope has gone into it. So if someone argues strongly that path A is the right path, then walks path B, that suggests their argument was dishonest and that they may know things or believe things that they didn't let on, and that if they had, maybe we'd want to walk path B as well. In this case BlackRock is telling others to "contribute to society", which is vague enough to be meaningless to begin with, but then muddies their position even further by doing things that don't appear to be implementing their own advice. So if even they don't believe in it, why should anyone else?