5 ms·

What does this mean?

by cr__ 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
klyrs 4y ago
It's a thought-terminating cliche.
LegitShady 4y ago
its social credits for corporations. "parrot these ideas and we'll send investors your way who are expressly investing in your not because you're making a profit, but because you're saying the right things." It's not complicated.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  This, but it's a good thing. Or rather, less bad than investing in planet destroying technology just for max marginal profit.
  - LegitShady 4y ago
    nah, it legalized using client funds for the purpose of backing your political allies over profits. If you want to invest into a company you like go ahead, but fund managers and other fiduciaries should be required to prioritize profits for their clients over ESG goals. None of this is good for anyone except companies burning money but who can point to the DIE programs.
    - Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
      > but fund managers and other fiduciaries should be required to prioritize profits for their clients over ESG goals. But they are prioritizing profits. Companies which think they can ignore societal pressures get attacked by governemnts and attorney generals way more often, that's because politicians want to show their voters that they are out to enforce the societal pressures they care about. If all surveys show that climate change and societal equality are high on citizens priorities, then politicians and attorney generals who live and die due to such surveys will sniff non-compliance and attack the companies which are non-compliant, thus jeopardizing their profits. If companies want to run from ESG ratings they should stay private. You have private companies which sell 300bn worth of products and services per year so it can be done. People can invest in them indirectly via buying stocks/bonds of banks which loan them money
      - LegitShady 4y ago
        >If all surveys show that climate change and societal equality are high on citizens priorities, then politicians and attorney generals who live and die due to such surveys will sniff non-compliance and attack the companies which are non-compliant, thus jeopardizing their profits. which is why Tesla was delisted from the ESG index, but amazon who drives individual items often imported from china to people's houses and operates warehouses where people have injury rates and earn low wages, and exxon mobile who creates petrol products, etc are on it. It's all just political games in trying to coerce companies to repeat political messaging in the hope of investment money. It's not a question of "running from ESG products" its about communicating to the general public what's actually going on.
  - robswc 4y ago
    Ah yea, the beacons of non-planet destroying companies like Exxon...
memish 4y ago
It's referencing the CCP-like control ESG enables over its people and companies.

What does this mean?

by cr__ 4y ago

What does this mean?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

klyrs 4y ago

It's a thought-terminating cliche.

LegitShady 4y ago

its social credits for corporations. "parrot these ideas and we'll send investors your way who are expressly investing in your not because you're making a profit, but because you're saying the right things." It's not complicated.

unethical_ban 4y ago
This, but it's a good thing. Or rather, less bad than investing in planet destroying technology just for max marginal profit.
- LegitShady 4y ago
  nah, it legalized using client funds for the purpose of backing your political allies over profits. If you want to invest into a company you like go ahead, but fund managers and other fiduciaries should be required to prioritize profits for their clients over ESG goals. None of this is good for anyone except companies burning money but who can point to the DIE programs.
  - Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
    > but fund managers and other fiduciaries should be required to prioritize profits for their clients over ESG goals. But they are prioritizing profits. Companies which think they can ignore societal pressures get attacked by governemnts and attorney generals way more often, that's because politicians want to show their voters that they are out to enforce the societal pressures they care about. If all surveys show that climate change and societal equality are high on citizens priorities, then politicians and attorney generals who live and die due to such surveys will sniff non-compliance and attack the companies which are non-compliant, thus jeopardizing their profits. If companies want to run from ESG ratings they should stay private. You have private companies which sell 300bn worth of products and services per year so it can be done. People can invest in them indirectly via buying stocks/bonds of banks which loan them money
    - LegitShady 4y ago
      >If all surveys show that climate change and societal equality are high on citizens priorities, then politicians and attorney generals who live and die due to such surveys will sniff non-compliance and attack the companies which are non-compliant, thus jeopardizing their profits. which is why Tesla was delisted from the ESG index, but amazon who drives individual items often imported from china to people's houses and operates warehouses where people have injury rates and earn low wages, and exxon mobile who creates petrol products, etc are on it. It's all just political games in trying to coerce companies to repeat political messaging in the hope of investment money. It's not a question of "running from ESG products" its about communicating to the general public what's actually going on.
- robswc 4y ago
  Ah yea, the beacons of non-planet destroying companies like Exxon...

memish 4y ago

It's referencing the CCP-like control ESG enables over its people and companies.