4 ms·

But don't you think it's concerning if they're not even attempting to keep up with appearances anymore?

by Wowfunhappy 2y ago

bdcravens 2y ago
Myself I prefer they are honest about it. There's no value in a false sense of security.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  This relies on the totally unsubstantiated view that a less appealing outward appearance is more honest. If you believe corporations tend to fall short of their external appearances, then what reason do you have to believe this isn’t still the case, but from a lower basis? I.e. you assume: Before: 8 goodness points (apparent) = 6 goodness points (actual) Now: 6 goodness points (apparent) = 6 goodness points (actual) Wouldn’t your logic actually indicate their new goodness points (actual) should be 4?
prepend 2y ago
I think “keeping up appearances” is too subjective to be meaningful. It seems like something that someone will always think they aren’t or are, so you have to poll people or whatever to figure it out. So it will lead to me chasing something I can’t know well. I’d rather avoid these sort of meaningless labels and just focus on doing what I think is important. Like it I wanted to reduce climate impact and I was a bank, I would set up a page that lists all the ways I impact climate.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Right and… isn’t this a step in the opposite direction…?
crowcroft 2y ago
Honestly, I don't really know if I should or shouldn't be. ESG actively allocated investment dollars that were specifically designated for socially and environmentally responsible businesses into oil & gas companies, so in that case keeping up appearances is actively making things worse than doing nothing.
bee_rider 2y ago
It is concerning, but it’s a symptom of a problem that, if you are concerned, you probably knew about already.
phil21 2y ago
Nope. I find it hopeful. Maybe people in general are sick of the pandering and performative nonsense and are finally realizing "awareness" is a bullshit made up thing for people to feel better while doing absolutely nothing useful. As others have pointed out, this sort of stuff is actively harmful once entities learn to easily game it. This sort of thing has sucked the air from anyone actually doing useful meaningful things - since anyone paying attention just rolls their eyes when someone talks about being green or whatever. Sure, some companies and orgs actually are legitimately doing useful and interesting stuff - but it takes so much personal research into each one now that anyone blathering about how they are green is met with instant suspicion to anyone remotely paying attention to the space. The less administrative and marketing driven grift the better, even if it's a tiny little baby step. This sort of thing has done more to harm the environmental movement than helped it from where I'm standing.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  > This sort of thing has sucked the air from anyone actually doing useful meaningful things Do you really expect real movement on climate change now?
surgical_fire 2y ago
No. We should all stop being naive. A corporation only mandate is profits, always increasing ones. All else is secondary. It's the role of elected governments to regulate that their incessant chase for profits don't harm society. If society puts in place a government that doesn't care to regulate corporations in their harmful ways, well, in a sense society has spoken.

But don't you think it's concerning if they're not even attempting to keep up with appearances anymore?

bdcravens 2y ago

Myself I prefer they are honest about it. There's no value in a false sense of security.

llamaimperative 2y ago
This relies on the totally unsubstantiated view that a less appealing outward appearance is more honest. If you believe corporations tend to fall short of their external appearances, then what reason do you have to believe this isn’t still the case, but from a lower basis? I.e. you assume: Before: 8 goodness points (apparent) = 6 goodness points (actual) Now: 6 goodness points (apparent) = 6 goodness points (actual) Wouldn’t your logic actually indicate their new goodness points (actual) should be 4?

prepend 2y ago

I think “keeping up appearances” is too subjective to be meaningful. It seems like something that someone will always think they aren’t or are, so you have to poll people or whatever to figure it out. So it will lead to me chasing something I can’t know well. I’d rather avoid these sort of meaningless labels and just focus on doing what I think is important. Like it I wanted to reduce climate impact and I was a bank, I would set up a page that lists all the ways I impact climate.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Right and… isn’t this a step in the opposite direction…?

crowcroft 2y ago

Honestly, I don't really know if I should or shouldn't be. ESG actively allocated investment dollars that were specifically designated for socially and environmentally responsible businesses into oil & gas companies, so in that case keeping up appearances is actively making things worse than doing nothing.

bee_rider 2y ago

It is concerning, but it’s a symptom of a problem that, if you are concerned, you probably knew about already.

phil21 2y ago

Nope. I find it hopeful. Maybe people in general are sick of the pandering and performative nonsense and are finally realizing "awareness" is a bullshit made up thing for people to feel better while doing absolutely nothing useful. As others have pointed out, this sort of stuff is actively harmful once entities learn to easily game it. This sort of thing has sucked the air from anyone actually doing useful meaningful things - since anyone paying attention just rolls their eyes when someone talks about being green or whatever. Sure, some companies and orgs actually are legitimately doing useful and interesting stuff - but it takes so much personal research into each one now that anyone blathering about how they are green is met with instant suspicion to anyone remotely paying attention to the space. The less administrative and marketing driven grift the better, even if it's a tiny little baby step. This sort of thing has done more to harm the environmental movement than helped it from where I'm standing.

JKCalhoun 2y ago
> This sort of thing has sucked the air from anyone actually doing useful meaningful things Do you really expect real movement on climate change now?

surgical_fire 2y ago

No. We should all stop being naive. A corporation only mandate is profits, always increasing ones. All else is secondary. It's the role of elected governments to regulate that their incessant chase for profits don't harm society. If society puts in place a government that doesn't care to regulate corporations in their harmful ways, well, in a sense society has spoken.