> [Bluebell Capital Partners,] A UK activist investor with a history of taking on big companies has called on BlackRock founder Larry Fink to resign as chief ex

> [Bluebell Capital Partners,] A UK activist investor with a history of taking on big companies has called on BlackRock founder Larry Fink to resign as chief executive over the “apparent hypocrisy” of the asset manager’s use of environmental, social and governance investment factors. > Giuseppe Bivona and Marco Taricco, Bluebell’s co-chief investment officers, contended that BlackRock had changed positions several times on investing in thermal coal production while failing to live up to Fink’s widely publicised sustainability commitments. > Shareholder data show Bluebell has about a 0.01 per cent stake in BlackRock, which has a market capitalisation of $107bn. This seems like a not-issue that is being blown up by the media due to big names (BlackRock) and a controversial topic (ESG). Do firms generally listen to activist shareholders with 0.01% stakes? My personal take is that ESG should either be aggressive, or removed. If a firm wants to avoid investing in Eg. Fossil Fuels due to the climate change implications, then great. Do it - and make it a uniform consideration. If they want to only focus on the “what makes money today” aspect, then do it, and ignore the non-monetary considerations all together. Wavering on tiny aspects of climate impact seems like it could eat at returns, but not meaningfully impact environmental protection. I would even be open to government regulations that change the nature of how companies consider “shareholder value” to broaden it to consider “environmental impact” - similar to a B-Corp today - but again, only if its uniformly applied and a true consideration and not a publicity stunt or afterthought.