7 ms·

ESG is a political compliance score. Fall out of favor with certain groups and your score will plummet, publicly tout an agenda around diversity and sustainabil

• greeneggs 4y ago
  MSCI ESG ratings: Tesla: A https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings-climate-search-tool/issuer/tesla-inc/IID000000002594878 https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings... Exxon: BBB https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings-climate-search-tool/issuer/exxon-mobil-corporation/IID000000002127471 https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings...
  • gnarbarian 4y ago
    I was referring to this which happened a few months ago: https://esgreview.net/2022/07/06/is-exxonmobil-really-more-esg-friendly-than-tesla-2/ https://esgreview.net/2022/07/06/is-exxonmobil-really-more-e... https://seekingalpha.com/article/4516270-tesla-exxon-mobil-sp-500-esg-how-does-this-work https://seekingalpha.com/article/4516270-tesla-exxon-mobil-s...
  • sjaak 4y ago
    Shell: AA https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings-climate-search-tool/issuer/shell-plc/IID000000002137074 https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings... Higher than TSLA
    • gnarbarian 4y ago
      also Tesla is only average for the automotive industry which is mind-boggling.
      • andrepd 4y ago
        Well why shouldn't they be? Most major auto makers are phasing out development of new ICE drivetrains, and phasing out ICE manufacturing altogether. Meanwhile Tesla is certainly not without criticism.
        • gnarbarian 4y ago
          >plans to phase out vs >never offered and never will offer isn't that criticism political in nature?
          • SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
            YMMV on exactly what counts as "political", but I can easily imagine someone having an honest, good faith belief that investing in Toyota's transition to EVs is just as good for the planet as investing in Tesla's from-scratch EVs.
      • baobob 4y ago
        > To manufacture each EV battery, you must process > 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium > 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt > 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, 25,000 pounds of ore for copper > Digging up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust > For just - one - battery. https://twitter.com/brianroemmele/status/1503176565974216710 https://twitter.com/brianroemmele/status/1503176565974216710 Would appreciate a fact check if this is anyone's business here
        • gnarbarian 4y ago
          They can be recycled once we have a large install base
          • washbrain 4y ago
            Can they? I've seen people make this claim, but I've not seen it actually substantiated. Who has successfully recycled one, what was their yield, what was the cost?
    • california2077 4y ago
      [flagged]
      • smsm42 4y ago
        So you're saying this score is actually how left-wing is the management of the company? I understand why a left-wing politician would eagerly embrace such score, but I do not see how a person not in the clutches of partisan fervor would want anything to do with it. In fact, a rational investor would keep away from such companies, as they would see the management sacrifice the benefit of their company and their client for political purposes - as we have already seen numerous examples. You don't really want to invest in a company where the management is willing to hurt the business to make a partisan point.
    • washbrain 4y ago
      TSLA also has a lot of labor related discussions open about workplace safety and racism. (I'm not weighing in on their validity, but it's absolutely truthful the allegations and lawsuits are there.)
      • Aarostotle 4y ago
        > it's absolutely truthful the allegations and lawsuits are there. I want to make sure I understand you. You don't know if people's accusations are true, but you do know that they are making accusations. Is that correct?
        • washbrain 4y ago
          Yeah. I'm not in a position to judge the veracity of the allegations, but the allegations are definitely there.
      • smsm42 4y ago
        You see how bizarre it gets. If you discuss workplace safety and racism (even without any proof of any wrongdoing, just talking about how to treat people better - and I'm sure there are always ways to treat people better), you get a ding on the score. If you suppress any discussion on the matter, you score is perfect. There's absolutely no evidence Tesla is more racist or unsafe place to work than Shell. If anything, Shell should be, in theory, more risky, safety-wise - they are much bigger, so more opportunity to screw up, and they do some things that are inherently risky, like mining and extraction. But I have a serious suspicion that the score has much less to do with safety statistics than with politics and donating to certain people and NGOs, somehow.
        • washbrain 4y ago
          Your hypothesis is that people are more likely to sue their employer if their employer is Tesla, rather then Shell?
          • smsm42 4y ago
    • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      Shell have committed to being net zero by 2050, including the products they sell and have some kind of a plan in place to make it happen. There's bits of their plan that seem dubious to me, like mentions of carbon capture but overall, since I believe that the problem of climate change wasn't "oh no, we can't do this, because it's impossible" but rather "we're not going to do this", that commitment and plan is all I'm really looking for. It would be like the USA implementing a carbon tax. Is it instantly going to solve all the problems tomorrow? Will it magically fix all the previous carbon they've emitted. No, but it would be a really smart thing to do and just based on their size, would have a massive impact over time accelerating the transition.
      • teamonkey 4y ago
        > Shell have committed to being net zero by 2050, including the products they sell How is this remotely possible in any real sense? It doesn’t hold up to any form of scrutiny. They would literally have to remove thousands of tonnes of carbon from the air every year and put it back in the ground. That is not possible. No, they’ve built a few wind farms and intend to trade carbon credits. Pure greenwashing.
        • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
          > They would literally have to remove thousands of tonnes of carbon from the air every year and put it back in the ground. That is not possible. They don't need to remove it from the air, that's kind of the last resort, though some people do think that'll be part of the answer eventually and are investigating ways to do it. The simplest and cheapest option to reach their goal will generally be to avoid emitting carbon in the first place. So yes, building wind farms is a good thing, as is running an EV charging network. Lots of things they can do to make money as a business that don't involve greenhouse gas emissions. Lots of ways they can save money as a business, which as a side effect reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon credits are a boring, sensible answer that economist like, it's basically equivalent to a carbon tax. It literally pays people to do the right thing, and charges them if they don't. It's one of the policies that enabled Tesla and EVs generally to succeed and get to the point where they are better than what we had before. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/tesla-electric-vehicle-regulatory-credits-explained.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/tesla-electric-vehicle-regul...
    • rocqua 4y ago
      On the S and the G, I could imagine Tesla doing quite bad. With e.g. "work fro. Hone is fine, as long as you work from the office at least 40 hours a week". Besides, shell is apparently so green that activists investors are asking it to split out the green energy part from the oil part. The idea of activists is that oil lovers undervalue shell because of the green stuff, whilst green lovers undervalue shell because of the oil. Hence if you split it the parts have a higher combined valuation. Point being, shell has a very significant green energy investment.
  • hunterb123 4y ago
    Come on now, don't cherry pick, tack on a few more for context: Shell: A++ https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings-climate-search-tool/issuer/shell-plc/IID000000002137074 https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings... BP: A https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings-climate-search-tool/issuer/bp-plc/IID000000002140371 https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-ratings... Marathon Oil: A
• zmgsabst 4y ago
  ESG was always an excuse for misconduct: Executives and financiers took actions which harmed shareholders, retirement investors, etc to advance their personal political interests — and then smirked, saying “we lost your money for your own good!” How much money have 401Ks lost on this nonsense? I’m pretty sure the number is “trillions”.
• gnarbarian 4y ago
  it's also a way to extort money out of companies. Using slave labor? it's ok just donate some money here and boost your score. There are also companies (don't ask) I've encountered who appear to offer nothing but 3rd party branded kubernetes combined with a whole truckload of bullshit about how their product reduces your carbon footprint in the cloud. They reach out and attempt to partner with successful disadvantaged education programs for cheap interns and to add badges to their website. for the life of me I looked into what exactly they were doing and I couldn't figure out what they actually offered. It appeared to be nothing except a collection of bullshit to extract funding under the guise of ESG.
  • ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > it's also a way to extort money out of companies. Using slave labor? it's ok just donate some money here and boost your score. That's not extortion, that's the opposite - bribery > They reach out and attempt to partner with successful disadvantaged education programs for cheap interns and to add badges to their website I did see this kind of shit once
    • antasvara 4y ago
      >That's not extortion, that's the opposite - bribery. I think that depends on your perspective. From the company's perspective, they're bribing the ratings agency by donating money. From the agency's perspective, they're using their rating as a way of coercing a company into making donations. That could be considered extortion, though not in the legal sense.
      • ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        I think the distinction is -> if I threaten you by planting drugs on you, which I am not legally meant to do, then I am extrorting you as I took the initiative. If you are the one that was doing something illegal to begin with, and bribe an official to keep it under wraps, then it's on you.
        • 4y ago
• Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
  > The fact that Exxon (edit: oops I mean shell) has a higher ESG score than Tesla should be all you need to know. If you weren't so deeply into Musk intimate parts and repeat word for word his tweet you'd realize that it makes perfect sense. Exxon only extracts the thing, it doesn't burn it. Tesla burns a lot of energy to build cars. That's not to say ESG is a perfect system, perfection would be assigning an ESG score at the atomic level, meaning for every single human. At that point it wouldn't matter if you are the CEO of an oil company or the CEO of a coal car company which sells itself as a solar car company...when you board the G650ER you'd get the automatic Z-rating which puts you at the very bottom enabling peers to shame and attack you. Of course it will never happen because the elites love to protect their CO2 intensive lifestyle while pontificating the rest of us to drive electric and eat bugs.
  • losteric 4y ago
    > Exxon only extracts the thing, it doesn't burn it. Tesla burns a lot of energy to build cars. ESG supposed to provide a holistic measure of impact. Exxon and Tesla's ESG score would include the impact of using their product (ie burning Exxon's gas, driving and eventually disposing Tesla's cars)
    • Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
      Doesn't change the core concept of my post. The enemy of the environment is not Exxon or Tesla or Shell. The enemy of the environment are the CEO of Exxon, Shell and Tesla. Just one individual like that emits more CO2 than a small town during their whole lifetime of traveling in private jets and yachts to their big mansions all over the globe
• galdosdi 4y ago
  The other really crazy thing is that, almost by definition, restricting your portfolio to just an index of non-ESG companies should outperform the market. (If that wasn't the case, it would be irrational for any company _not_ to be ESG compliant, right?) But such an obvious arbitrage opportunity would hardly last long. So I suspect for every dollar someone shifts out of the general market into ESG only funds, someone else shifts a dollar in the opposite direction, creating no net effect except a wealth transfer from more ethically concerned to less ethically concerned investors. See, extending the "Consumers will vote with their feet!" paradigm to the stock market is moronic. It just means "Be a sucker and give away your returns to anyone with less qualms." If a rule is worth wanting companies to follow, it needs to be made a law so it will apply equally to all competitors, else you get a classic race to the bottom.
• lastofthemojito 4y ago
  Isn't that like complaining that Whole Foods sells cookies? Whole Foods positions itself as a healthier grocery store, but they still sell chocolate milk and ice cream and cakes and all sorts of products in indulgent categories. They just don't sell ones with high fructose corn syrup or saccharin or other ingredients they've deemed bad. As I understand it ESG rankings are generally done relative to other companies in a market segment. They aren't saying "this airline has a high ESG score, they must be less environmentally damaging than this farming company with a lower ESG score". They're ranking which airlines do the "good" things (for some value of good).
• enlyth 4y ago
  You vill own nothing und you vill be happy.