That’s five different ratings groups right there.
They don’t agree on a single standard, that’s why people keep forming new groups, (well that, and to make money as a ratings company.)
If investing companies and lenders can establish subjective social requirements for their activities, these companies have no basis for complaining if groups of consumers do the same.
Obviously that is true.
I have not mined the data for the differences, but the groups accuse each other of “greenwashing” all the time. They accuse corporations of “greenwashing” because the corp. uses a different standard. . . .
One ESG rating is that oil companie must use every technology ever invented to prevent oil spills and pollution. Another is that oil is bad, but nat gas is good. A third is that all fossil fuels are bad.
Whatever standard you want, just create a group, start judging people and charge them for an audit or certificate of compliance.
CDP
ISS-ESG
Sustainalytics
MSCVI
EcoVadis
Bloomberg
You tell me which one has which standard for “E” and which one has which standard for “G.”
Why did the transgender person move west in 1849?
Because there was gold in them/their hills.
2 Likes
Where is the “not like” button on this forum?
1 Like
the correlation among those agencies’ ESG ratings was on average 0.61 . . .
three distinct sources of divergence:
Scope divergence can occur when one agency includes greenhouse gas emissions, employee turnover, human rights, and corporate lobbying in its ratings scope, while another doesn’t consider lobbying.
Weight divergence can happen when agencies assign varying degrees of importance to attributes, valuing human rights more than lobbying, for example.
?
Measurement divergence occurs when ratings agencies measure the same attribute using different indicators. One might evaluate a firm’s labor practices on the basis of workforce turnover, while another counts the number of labor cases against the firm. While both capture aspects of a firm’s labor practices, they are likely to lead to different assessments, the research cautions.
Keep the “cancel” orders coming!!!
ESG “cancels” companies that don’t follow the investors/lender’s subjective criteria. Boycotts are the antidote.
2 Likes
Can you name a company Blackrock has refused to invest in, or withdrawn its investments from due to ESG concerns?
Back in the real world, Blackrock is taking more fire for not walking the tali on ESG than anything else.
But, given the inability of conservatives articulate any policies other than tax cuts for the wealthy, you have to keep the outrage coming.
1 Like
What the heck do you think the purpose of having ESG is for? It is to set a policy for discriminating in investing and lending. There is no other purpose. Is this a ploy like the left uses with CRT: there is no such thing? If Blackrock isn’t using it, then let them denounce it.
How does ESG work? One aspect of the “social” aspect is DEI:
But what can be wrong with DEI? Ok:
But does. Lackrock have anything to do,with ESG? Ok:
https://www.blackrock.com/ch/individual/en/themes/sustainable-investing
I asked you for an example of BlackRock refusing to invest in a company or withdrawing an investment over ESG concerns. You don’t have an example of that happening.
Read the article you posted. BlackRock offers an ESG fund as an option to investors who want to direct their investments in accord with their view of climate change. What is wrong with that? BlackRock also has funds where investors can put money into the current energy industry.
Does giving people a choice of where to put their money bother you? That is how capitalism works: a savvy business identifies any legal option or niche that can generate more revenue. Under Marxism, the choices are limited to those that are approved. I know it gets confusing, because progressives are always being called Marxists, but in this matter, it’s the progressives who are the capitalists. Not you.
DEI is failing in the marketplace because it is a stupid idea. It enrages the right because it demands that people pay attention to the racism that the right insists does not exist. It enrages the left because its only window dressing (spend a few hours a week ticking the box that you attended DEI training) without ever addressing meaningful change. It will die in the marketplace of ideas because it does not deliver value.
Blackrock states clearly it’s principles. It does not involve or consult with me as to each individual application. Are you suggesting it does not actually apply these principles?
And you just went to my first link. It is much more involved than just a few funds.
1 Like
That is what a boycott does.
1 Like
I am asking you for an example of where Blackrock has made a decision to withhold funds from a firm because of ESG issues. What you have pointed out is that some funds do not invest in certain funds but other funds do, so why do you see a reason for a boycott.
As to your question about firms and principles, I’ve been in enough corporate boardrooms to know that almost all statements of principle and culture are absolute BS. In the end they all the same: innovate; grow; honor customers; treat employees well, diversity blah, blah, blah.
The only thing that matters is how the organization operates and that usually has very little to do with the stated “culture”
This 
To my knowledge Blackrock has one or more funds that are ESG oriented but other funds that are not.
I can’t prove it, but I suspect the outrage at Blackrock by cons is misinformed . . . then again it usually comes for the 'so-called" cons whose idea of conservatism is to oppose corporations, oppose banks, oppose the rich, see corporate conspiracies everywhere etc. etc…
Actually no in this case. You would call off the boycott if Blackrock dropped its ESG funds, so your goals is to give people fewer choices not more. The boycotts aimed at Bud Light and Target are similar. They are all based on demands that companies offer fewer choices and not appeal to those who do not fit in the dominant ideology.
These boycotts are anti-capitalist. They are efforts to constrain the free market rather than let the market decide.
But the worst is you are unable to come up with a single instance in which Black Rock constrained the market based on ESG principles. I understand boycotting a company if you object to its actions, but you have providing nothing but suspicion here. That is not enough.
It is absolutely misinformed. They are conflating a limited number of ESG funds with an overall market strategy.
The real irony is that ESG funds are more eyewash than anything else. My broker has had to put up with my wife and I questioning investment decisions on ethical grounds for years… for example we’ve put money in pipeline companies based on their safety records. When ESG funds started to emerge (pre Covid), we looked at the asset allocation of several of them and none of them had truly aligned their investment strategy with ESG aims. They were more eyewash and marketing than content. I might investing one if its returns were stellar, but as a matter of virtue signaling they are largely phony.
So it’s ok for an investor to refuse to put its money into a company that has practices with which they do not agree, but at the same time not ok for consumers to refuse to put their money into a company that has practices with which they do not agree?
The probably-misinformed cons here and elsewhere on social media did not make up the charges on their own. They are echoing an accusation made by a Texas politician trying to get the media spotlight. (see below)
To my understanding
Blackrock has ESG funds and non ESG funds. It now or formerly was a primary carrier of a major California public employees retirement fund (teachers I think) and came under fire from the left. since then Blackrock has made public statements about global warming and offered more ESG choices . . . . but it maintains non ESG choices and those choices include over $100 b invested in Texas oil companies.
.
.
.
So why the attack from the left and part of the right?
The attacks has found resonance with that tiny tiny embarrassing subpart that are social righties who are deeply in love with the left anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, anti-rich, anti-free market agenda.
No. What I am saying is it is not okay to call for a boycott of a company if you have no evidence that the company is doing what you are objecting to.
Anybody who can meet the minimum investment requirement should be free to invest in ESG funds or not as they wish, but anyone who invests knowledgeably will invest based on a funds yields, risk level, the track record of its management team. and its fit within your portfolio and strategy. Politics driving investment is not capitalism; sounds a lot more like the Central Committee’s Five Year Plan, comrade.
