Do these groups achieve anything meaningful? Feels like the kind of thing companies sign up to so they can get some PR and say they're being 'responsible'.
Like Exxon was/is an ESG friendly stock, but Tesla isn't. Regardless of how you feel about Elon, the real impact both companies have on the environment shows the absurdity of all this corporate green washing nonsense.
They probably do still need to pretend they care, customer opinion isn't irrelevant. but they certainly don't need to convince the US government that they care anymore.
They can’t make decisions on that basis, because they’re only good for the next two years; Republicans are very likely to lose the House in 2026. Assuming anything resembling the current structure of the world holds together at all.
Linking this to any former current or upcoming administration is just silly political bias and grandstanding. By your own admission it was already wholly ineffective.
Also, capitalism is sociopathic at the first order so all we are talking about is trimming the sails to keep speed vs trying to get to a destination. Capital doesnt care what the destination is, it just wants to be first.
Line goed up
Using the word "pretend" mischaracterizes the so iopaths.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I get that you are joking about Exon and Tesla but the story behind that is that Exxon actually has a responsive board while Tesla has very poor governance.
It has nothing to do with the E in ESG and was only referring to the G.
Fair enough that Tesla is disqualified for poor governance. Lacking the G is disqualifying, but lacking the E isn't? Tells you all need to know about the programme.
Like Exxon was/is an ESG friendly stock, but Tesla isn't. Regardless of how you feel about Elon, the real impact both companies have on the environment shows the absurdity of all this corporate green washing nonsense.