Is The ESG Colossus Stumbling

Reposted from Forbes

Tilak Doshi Contributor

I analyze energy economics and related public policy issues.

Yesterday, leaders of the Florida’s House and Senate hailed legislation that would “protect Florida retirement accounts and state investments from financial discrimination by eliminating the consideration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investment strategies” and “protect Floridians from being denied loans based on their political or social beliefs.” It is perhaps with a special irony that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced, on the day before Valentine, his latest legislative proposals against the ESG movement that has ruled investment strategies of the largest corporations in the West for the past several years.

The proposals will prohibit fund managers for state and local government in the state from considering ESG factors in any investment decisions. State government entities will not be allowed to request ESG information from suppliers in the procurement process. The governor has been among the leading anti-ESG advocates, barring fund managers for state pension funds last year from incorporating ESG factors in the investment process. The state recently pulling $2 billion from BlackRockBLK -0.8% , the world’s largest asset manager with over $8.5 trillion under management, over its use of ESG factors. A pittance for BlackRock, but it is the demonstration effect that often matters in the scheme of things.

Is the ESG colossus – standing astride the worlds of business and political mandates over the past two decades in the Western world — stumbling?

Origins of ESG

The roots of the ESG movement can be traced to concerns about “corporate social responsibility” (CSR), a term coined in 1953 by American economist and author of “Social Responsibilities of the Businessman” Howard Bowen. He used the phrase to refer to “the obligation of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of objectives and values of our society.” By the 1970s, CSR began to be popular among corporate circles and became part of mainstream management culture in the business world of the developed countries. In 1973, the World Economic Forum’s “Davos Manifesto” proclaimed that management must also serve employees as well as societies, as a “trustee of the material universe for future generations”.

The morphing of CSR into ESG and “stakeholder capitalism” can be traced to the then-United Nation secretary-general Kofi Annan who told a gathering of business and finance leaders at WEF’s Davos forum in 1999 to initiate, with the UN, “a global compact of shared values and principles, which will give a human face to the global market”. With Annan’s speech, ESG fused with the concept of “sustainable development” under the aegis of the Davos annual meetings and the UN.

As the central organizing principle of all things economic, social and environmental, the concepts of sustainable development and ESG fed into existential concerns of the “climate crisis” and have become a central preoccupation over the past two decades in public policy and social discourse across the Western world.

ESG’s Onslaught on Fossil Fuels

The constellation of leading actors in Western governments, multilateral agencies and business corporations – from financial regulators to development agency bureaucrats, and from CEOs to investment advisors – promoting “stakeholder capitalism” have primarily one target in sight: the fossil fuel industries, namely coal, oil and natural gas. The popularized logic employed is deceptively simple and extraordinarily simplistic. The combustion of fossil fuels is the predominant source of greenhouse gas emissions which lead to global warming. Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, constitutes the ‘control knob’ of climate change. Hence the urgency in ‘saving the planet’ by rapidly shutting down the fossil fuels industry (“net zero by 2050”) with ESG and stakeholder capitalism leading the charge.

BP was among the first major international oil and gas companies to declare in 2002 that “We need to reinvent the energy business. We need to go beyond petroleum.” No more the British Petroleum of yore but “beyond petroleum” — bp in small letters — of the new. In 2020, the company’s CEO, in a shock announcement, promised to slash oil and gas production by 40% and boost capital spending on low-carbon energy tenfold to $5 billion a year – a plan that “even Greenpeace is cautiously praising”. The company, along with the other major European oil and gas majors Shell and TotalEnergies, have committed to the “net zero by 2050” carbon emission targets of the Paris Agreement, a non-binding international accord signed in 2015. Its announcement merely signified another milestone in the quest for corporate environmental redemption.

The ESG movement which has gained momentum over the past two decades is not without consequences. Oil and gas capital expenditures fell by almost 60% from their peak of $780 billion in 2014 to $328 billion in 2020. While this was partly caused by the collapse in oil prices over 2014 – 2016 and during the covid year 2020, it clearly has been accentuated by the hostility of the ESG-infused environment in the West. According to a recent study by Goldman Sachs, investment delays in oil and gas projects since 2014 will lead to a loss of 10 million barrels a day (or another Saudi Arabia) and 3 million barrels per day of oil equivalent in liquefied natural gas (LNG) (or another Qatar) by 2024-25. The bank warned: “We have exhausted all of the spare capacity in the system, and can no longer able to cope with supply disruptions like the one we are currently witnessing because of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.”

Don’t Mess With Texas

The epicenter of the counterattack on the ESG movement is undoubtedly in the state of Texas which accounts for the largest production of oil and gas in the US. In August 2022, the state published a list of financial firms that could be banned from doing business with Texas, its state pension funds, and local governments. Texas congress leaders assert that the ESG investment trend is an attack on fossil fuels, effectively a boycott of conventional fuels production which make up a large portion of the state budget.

Texas blacklisted several financial firms including ESG funds managed by leading investment banks Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan and said they would be banned from doing business with the state. The blacklist includes the world’s biggest asset manager BlackRock, along with BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse GroupCS +1.5%, Danske Bank, Jupiter Fund Management, Nordea Bank, Schroders PLC, Svenska Handelsbanken, Swedbank, and the UBS Group.

Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar said that “The ESG movement has produced an opaque and perverse system in which some financial companies no longer make decisions in the best interest of their shareholders or their clients, but instead use their financial clout to push a social and political agenda shrouded in secrecy.”

This January, twenty-one state attorneys general released a letter to the two largest proxy advisory firms, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass, Lewis & Company, which control nearly all of the US proxy advisory market in the US, They hold enormous leverage of how institutional shareholders vote on company resolutions across the country. In the letter, the attorneys general warned “Your actions may threaten the value of our States’ and citizens investments and pensions – interests that may not be subordinated to your social and environmental beliefs or those of your other clients.”

The attorneys general objected to the use of social and climate criteria in advice to state investment vehicles and provided evidence of possible violations of fiduciary duty, alleging that the proxy advisors potentially violated their legal and contractual duties to their clients by “pledg[ing] to recommend … against” proposals that failed to implement ESG goals adequately.

The social responsibility of business is to increase profits

The question about the ethically appropriate role of business firms in societies in which they operate is as old as the business firm itself. Adam Smith, the sage of classical political economy, was as keen observer of businesses as any. He authored An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations after all. He was not at all uncertain in his response to the question of ethical business in 1776: it is from the appeal to the self-interest of the butcher, the brewer and the baker that we expect our dinner, not to their benevolence. He had also “never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”

Almost two centuries later, Milton Friedman — among Smith’s most famous acolytes — was just as clear in his response: “There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” He too was distrustful of businessmen who talk of promoting desirable social ends, for they are “unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.” His words ring just as true today, perhaps with even greater urgency.

The ESG establishment is not just the colossus standing astride the world of modern business. It occupies a dominating place in the politics and administrative bureaucracies of the ever-expanding regulatory state across the Western world. It has brazenly entered the boardrooms of financial regulators, the seminars of economic planners, and the townhalls of politicians. The great essayist H. L. Mencken’s dictum on “practical politics” is apt in encapsulating the role of ESG in contemporary Western politics: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Practical politics in the West today are no less afflicted by hobgoblins, “fighting climate change” and the demands for “social justice” above all.

Milton Friedman is passé today, repudiated by the likes of the US Business Roundtable and its powerful CEO members such as BlackRock’s Larry Fink. The widespread aversion to shareholder capitalism and profits in popular culture and in the business world, inculcated by ESG and “stakeholder” advocates in political parties, business corporations and NGOs, bodes ill for capitalism.

But we now see the emergence of a counterrevolution — in law, legislation and culture — against mandates and corporate behavior favoring ESG and “stakeholder capitalism”. In the backlash against the corrosive intrusions into capital and financial markets by the critics of Friedman’s shareholder capitalism, there is hope.

Follow me on Twitter

Tilak Doshi

I have worked in the oil and gas sector as an economist in both private industry and in think tanks, in Asia, the Middle East and the US over the past 25 years. I focus on global energy developments from the perspective of Asian countries that remain large markets for oil, gas and coal. I have written extensively on the areas of economic development, environment and energy economics. My publications include “Singapore in a Post-Kyoto World: Energy, Environment and the Economy” published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (2015). I won the 1984 Robert S. McNamara Research Fellow award of the World Bank and received my Ph.D. in Economics in 1992.

5 28 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
February 22, 2023 2:27 pm

“Stakeholder capitalism” looks very much like Italian Fascist economic models, nominally “private” businesses doing the bidding of their political bosses to the detriment of their nominal shareholders.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 23, 2023 4:30 am

Yes, it does look like Italian Fascism. Social Media/government collusion being the most glaring example.

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 23, 2023 8:41 am

That’s exactly what it is, Tom. It is fascism. If the World Economic Forum gets its way, then… all things for the (WEF) and nothing outside the (WEF). The soviets councils of stakeholders decide what’s best for you… and demand all glory and praise to itself.

Tom Halla
Reply to  leowaj
February 23, 2023 8:47 am

The definition of a fasci and a soviet are nearly the same, a “workers council”. Of course, both governments were in practice very centrally controlled, so a large portion of deception is always present.

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 23, 2023 8:58 am

Exactly, Tom. Fascism is far more stringent form of socialism. The foremost fascist– or at least the most famous– Benito Moussolini was a utopian socialist who looked at the prior 100 years of socialism from France, Germany, and Russian, and said, “this is crap… I can do socialism better.” Enter stage left: fascism.

Tom Halla
Reply to  leowaj
February 23, 2023 9:02 am

I would not say “far more stringent”. Marxism-Leninism and Maoism were every bit as foul as National Socialism or Fascism, and as socialist. Please note that all the sects are different.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 23, 2023 11:42 am

Different, yet similar in structure and all failures because of it.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 23, 2023 11:40 am

Different appendiges of the same disease carrying vermin, one might say.

Dave Fair
February 22, 2023 2:33 pm

Let the ESG lawsuits roll!

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Dave Fair
February 23, 2023 11:42 am

To clarify, ANTI-ESG lawsuits.

Janice Moore
February 22, 2023 2:52 pm

Who would you like to manage YOUR money?

Emotion-driven solar-wind-EV Scam Promoters:
comment image


Data-driven Real Money Managers with the skills of people like this:
comment image

Follow the money.

The real money.

Rud Istvan
February 22, 2023 3:18 pm

Speaking as someone who has been on the front lines of this particular corporate battle since graduating the Harvard Joint Program (business and law) in 1976. First as (eventually) the leading senior rainmaker at BCG. Then as MOT’s global strategy officer. Then as an entrepreneur raising multi millions of OPM.

It used to be that corporations had only one legal responsibility—maximize shareholder returns.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s this got broadened to ‘stakeholder returns’. Stakeholders beyond shareholders included ‘customers’, ‘employees’, and ‘debt holders’. This was still rational under all the prevailing legal doctrines, since (for example) a big strike by union employees most definitely negatively affected shareholders and customers.

But ESG is mainly stuff beyond ‘stakeholders’. And so is blatantly illegal under prevailing US corporate and SEC law. Florida is rightly calling it out. As should any shareholder of a mutual fund or Investment company espousing ESG.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 22, 2023 8:39 pm

Ah, a live perpetrator!
Sir, the policy you admit to above, has brought us to where we are today. The legal fiction that corporations are concerned only with maximising shareholder profit, has led to many a disaster, most notably this:
Accountants took over industry. The first thing the stupid twats did, was to determine that maintenance costs are not profiting your bottom line, so things started rotting, because maintenance funds were diverted to “make money”.
Engineers quickly learned, and started saving up whatever spare parts and materials left over. Come Monday, they see a truck loading their materials, sold for cents to the dollar as scrap metal, because the proceeds will be used to “make money”.
Now aeroplanes are falling from the sky, bridges collapse on school buses, trains fulll of toxins are burned to save the cost of a hazmat team (a coal train deserves instant hazmat response, though!!!) and hospitals have become the biggest source of deadly infections…
…because the ONLY legal responsibility of the Board, is shareholder profits. Including the privatised schooling system!
I think the only reason you diss ESG, is because you did not think of it first.

Rod Evans
Reply to  cilo
February 22, 2023 11:19 pm

Your analysis of folly is so simplistic it is only missing a sarc alert to explain it.
ESG actually stands for Economic Suicide Guaranteed, if you keep that in mind, you will start to understand things a little better.

Reply to  Rod Evans
February 23, 2023 12:11 am

You thought I’m defending ESG?
There was no sarcasm there, only direct accusations, with supporting evidence. I did not see it was Rud talking, I am not used to disagreeing with him so much…
Sorry for the rudeness, Rud, but “shareholder activism” has been a deadly weapon against Western industry. You know, that thing that used to pay pensions?

Rod Evans
Reply to  cilo
February 23, 2023 12:55 am

You thought I’m defending ESG?
Well your final line does condemn ‘dissing’ it, so what else are we supposed to think?
Also, you might think about the anxiety you have re shareholder activism. The pension funds are major share holders. Their right to be represented at AGMs and on company boards is not subject to criticism, is it?

February 22, 2023 4:00 pm


Janice Moore
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 22, 2023 5:00 pm


Gunga Din
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 23, 2023 12:37 pm

While you can still afford one!

Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 22, 2023 5:10 pm

I’m probably too old … beginning to forget English these days

Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 22, 2023 9:49 pm


Rod Evans
Reply to  Redge
February 22, 2023 11:21 pm

If you keep this up, I will be forced to start posting in Welsh!! 🙂

Reply to  Rod Evans
February 22, 2023 11:24 pm

ewch ymlaen pync, gwnewch fy niwrnod 😉

Rod Evans
Reply to  Redge
February 22, 2023 11:30 pm

Don’t you start, its fired six already….

Gunga Din
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 23, 2023 6:43 am


Janice Moore
Reply to  Gunga Din
February 23, 2023 9:52 am

😃 Oranges are ORANGE. The question is, why are bananas not called, “yellows.”

Gunga Din
Reply to  Janice Moore
February 23, 2023 12:43 pm

So people don’t confuse them with lennons or submarines?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Gunga Din
February 23, 2023 8:06 pm

: )

February 22, 2023 4:09 pm

Off topic a little nut I have been talking to Chatgpt. I asked they or whatever the sodding pronoun is for a smarmy groupthink entity is for a definition of “climate denier” since that sordid little bot introduced the term
The term “climate change denial” refers to the rejection or questioning of the scientific consensus that the Earth’s climate is warming and that this is primarily caused by human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Climate change deniers often argue that the scientific evidence is inconclusive or exaggerated, and may downplay or deny the potential impacts of climate change.
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists and scientific organizations agree that climate change is real and caused by human activities. However, climate change denial continues to be a controversial issue, particularly in political and media circles, where it is often linked to debates around environmental policy, economic interests, and ideology.

Plenty of more Q and A but it is like having a conversation with a shyster lawyer . Very obviously ChatGpt is well wired into a consensus reinforcing echo chamber.

Can I come up with a term Consensus Monkeys for those who identify as “climate scientists” who have no special insight into what does or does not happen in the atmosphere yet who bleat like Orwell’s sheep “97% agree you Nasty Denier. Man is bad .Mann is good. Hockey sticks Rule”

Reply to  alastairgray29yahoocom
February 22, 2023 7:28 pm

ChatGpt is learning! I asked it yesterday morning to enumerate the benefits of fossil fuels. It could not, but went into great detail about the harm caused by fossil fuel consumption. By the evening, it noted that fossil fuels helped improve global standard of living, but at great cost to the environment.

Reply to  alastairgray29yahoocom
February 22, 2023 9:03 pm

Rather than “artificial Intelligence” we need some “Artificial Common Sense”. The real common sense seems to have evaporated.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  alastairgray29yahoocom
February 23, 2023 4:41 am

“The overwhelming majority of climate scientists and scientific organizations agree that climate change is real and caused by human activities.”

They can agree all they want. Now, all they need is some evidence establishing their claims are true. They don’t have any of this so their agreement is meaningless.

Agreement is not necessarily the same as established fact. In this case, it is definitely not the same.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 23, 2023 12:56 pm

My favorite story about the non-sequitor of “consensus” is the brilliant and succinct summation by Albert Einstein.

Whe he introduced his General (I believe it was) Theory of Relativity, he got vehement push-back from other scientists. A bunch of them got together and published a pamphlet called “100 Scientists Against Einstein.”

His reaction was priceless and put “consensus” into its place.

His reaction was “Why 100? If I was wrong, ONE with a good argument would be enough.”

THAT is the essence of REAL science. The substance of the argument and what supports it is what counts, not how many arrogant asses “agree” in some ‘mutual admiration society.’

Reply to  alastairgray29yahoocom
February 23, 2023 10:08 am

“The overwhelming majority of climate scientists …” They have polled all climate scientists, or just Climate Scientists? What is their definition of scientist?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 23, 2023 1:23 pm

And more to the point, what difference does it make? They have no empirical evidence to support their “climate Boogeyman.”

February 22, 2023 5:00 pm

ESG will fail because people don’t like to be bullied and that’s what it’s all about. Once people realize what the ESG goal is …. control and so called “wealth redistribution” … and how it will affect their purchase choices and lifestyles they’ll revolt against it.

Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
February 22, 2023 9:12 pm

Like they revolted against outcomes-based education? Like they revolted against covidiocy? Like they revolted against yet another corporate takeover of yet another entire country with the help of NATO thugs in uniform?
There were bigger crowds watching the satanic superbowl show…

February 22, 2023 5:05 pm

Could the creator of the Colossus stumbling create a series of images?
As an alternative to the “Doomsday Clock”?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  martinc19
February 22, 2023 5:17 pm

CtM proudly announced he is now using an AI image generator. That did not go well for BING last week. So who knows how it will go here.

John Pickens
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 22, 2023 9:12 pm

I don’t mind the AI images, but they should be individually labeled as such, especially when depicting things like wind turbines and power plants. They are fiction, but can look very real.

Reply to  John Pickens
February 22, 2023 9:52 pm

They are fiction, but can look very real.

So like climate models then

Reply to  Redge
February 22, 2023 11:12 pm

You’ve explained everything climastrological in one sentence; It’s all about artistic expression!

Rod Evans
February 22, 2023 11:10 pm

There are only two choices in economics.

  1. Champion creating wealth.
  2. Champion decreasing wealth.

Profit is the prime driver of option one. Condemning those who seek to make profit, is the prime driver of option two. All instruments introduced to stifle or stop profit are examples of wealth destruction.
No society has ever knowingly enacted policies that reduce the wealth/security of its citizens, with the possible exception of those who occupied Easter Island.
The policies, being promoted today by the ‘modern’ West regarding limiting wealth creation i.e. ESG faux or actual communism have been tested many times. There is not one example where the people on the receiving end of those flawed wealth controlling policies, want to continue living in those restricted societies.
Can anyone name any left wing dominated country, that is suffering from uncontrolled migrant inflows?
Migration is the acid test of political opinion. People are leaving oppressive restrictive parts of the world where they have little chance of improving their economic situation. They are making often long and dangerous journeys, to places they consider a better option for them and their families. The direction of travel is always one way. We should stop ignoring the obvious and talk openly about why that is.

abolition man
Reply to  Rod Evans
February 23, 2023 9:50 am

We need to stop referring to free markets as “capitalism;” a much more descriptive term would be “economic freedom!” With controls against harming others or the environment, economic freedom could create a level of prosperity that has never been seen before! Just look at what happened to poverty around the planet after the Soviet Union fell, and stopped supporting Marxist insurgencies and dictatorships!
If we could roll back the socialist and fascist policies currently in place, I bet that tax revenues would soar to a height that would make paying down government possible, and thus free the young from the crippling burden they are being shackled with by the totalitarian minded!

Reply to  abolition man
February 23, 2023 10:27 am

Free enterprise is the correct term. The US Navy is building the 8th ship with the name Enterprise. The third Aircraft Carrier of that name. We must always have a ship named Enterprise as a reminder of that created the wealth this nation. Under the stewardship of leftists and greedy welfare whores (Democrat voters) that wealth is slowly now, but without massive electoral changes, will rapidly destroy.

The Virginia colony was established based on Free Enterprise, although under a Monarchy, the entrepreneurs were required to get license from King James 1. The Crown did not pay a penny to send the entrepreneurs to America.

See Virginia Company of London.

Yes, the shameless self promoters of New England and New York arrived almost 13 years AFTER the Virginia colony was established. AND the Virginia colony legislature declared a day of Thanksgiving before the “Pilgrims” ever landed on the North American coast. The effects of PR is scary.

Capitalism only applies when used with crony, as in CRONY CAPITALISM.

Michael S. Kelly
February 23, 2023 3:16 am

I worked for the US government (I’m ashamed to say) for the last 10 years of my career. In the process, I saved as much as I could in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), the government equivalent of a 401-K. Yesterday, I received a statement that detailed my account, and listed the performance of all of the six different funds over the past year, and year to date.

Last year, in a moment of panic, I moved all of my TSP into the G fund, which is US government securities. It was motivated by eye-popping losses in some of my other funds, though not all.

Reading the current statement, I said to my wife “I’m really glad I made that move into the G fund. It’s the only one that hasn’t lost a huge amount.” She asked how much the other funds had lost, and after a quick scan I read her the biggest loss: 26.26%. She considered that, and said “Well, that’s kind of consistent with the market.”

Then I told her “That’s year to date.” In all our years, I have never been able to shock her until that moment. Dumfounded, she said “How does anyone do that?!” (I should mention that she is a savvy investor, and very, very wealthy) I reminded her that all of the government TSP funds are managed by BlackRock…the leader of the ESG investment movement.

I feel badly for my friends in government service, though not for those who vote Democrat.

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
February 23, 2023 10:32 am

So in general, only a few?

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Drake
February 23, 2023 5:39 pm

Four that I know of.

Tom Abbott
February 23, 2023 4:24 am

From the article: “The state recently pulling $2 billion from BlackRockBLK-0.8% , the world’s largest asset manager with over $8.5 trillion under management, over its use of ESG factors. A pittance for BlackRock, but it is the demonstration effect that often matters in the scheme of things.”

BlackRock must be worried about this anti-ESG development because they have been advertising on television over the last few months trying to convince eveyone what good guys they are.

Tom Abbott
February 23, 2023 4:27 am

From the article: “Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar said that “The ESG movement has produced an opaque and perverse system in which some financial companies no longer make decisions in the best interest of their shareholders or their clients, but instead use their financial clout to push a social and political agenda shrouded in secrecy.””

A perfect description of what is going on.

February 23, 2023 8:42 am

ESG isn’t dead. The skin it wears is merely damaged. It will find another skin to climb into soon.

February 23, 2023 10:55 am

A first-generation American with Indian parents just announced he is running for President. Because he has no political experience or Q rating, I can only assume the real reason he’s running is to gain visibility for the non-ESG investment funds his company created last year.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nutmeg
February 23, 2023 6:02 pm

Vivek is a very smart guy. He will make a great contribution to the Republican presidential race. He will keep the other Repubicans on their toes. I look forward to seeing him in the debates.

Gunga Din
February 23, 2023 12:35 pm

“the obligation of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of objectives and values of our society.”

Don’t know what ESG means by that but I knew a wise and honest man who made $1mil selling furniture back when $1mil was a LOT of money (The ’40s and ’50s).
He said that “an ethical business deal is one where both parties get what they want.”
That is not what ESG promotes.
February 23, 2023 5:55 pm

I’m sending this article to my financial advisor !
No ESG for me or my investments.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights