3 ms·

> but fund managers and other fiduciaries should be required to prioritize profits for their clients over ESG goals. But they are prioritizing profits. Compani

> 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.