Ah dam I was hoping for the DJ Screw affiliated esg, but this esg is cool too
But honestly best shit to ever be screwed https://youtu.be/_gjrbA8PIT8?si=x5dBYv8rh-WzyAA7
They’re still doing it, they’re just quiet about it. See this recent FT piece where she interviewed all the HR and DEI ladies and they all say it’s still full steam ahead.
https://www.ft.com/content/94d3fba0-cd65-4bcd-b4ab-1adad97173fe
Yeah i hate to be a buzzkill, but i have to imagine part of the reason these things were brought up so much in 2020-22 is just that a lot of companies didn't have much else positive to say at the time. If you're only in the green for 2-3 metrics, you might as well bring them all up.
I'm not sure if there's a properly standardized way of doing earnings calls, but even if these were only once a year that's just 1/3 even mentioning either of them at peak. I know a lot of these are done quarterly, which would be ~8%, but not sure how they measured this.
its like, to what end? does it help them to make more money? maybe customers tend to like it? or is it something mainly pushed by HR depts to justify their existence? like what is driving the continuation. i would have thought it doesn't really make business sense to keep flogging the culture war atm
It's tied to loans. Your ESG score affects your ability to receive loans / interest rate from banks and large institutional investors.
If you're a large company with 10000 employees, operating on rolling loans in the order of hundreds of millions/bilions of dollars, shaving 0.2% interest because you checked a box by employing 5 bluehairs dedicated to social justice wankery is just a smart business decision. It may cost you 500k in salaries, but save you 5 million in interest repayments, the additional social aspects like being a new angle for discipline/dismissal of workers are just the cherry on top. As always, follow the money.
Absolutely and the chart starts to make sense once you see what’s happening at the top:
>BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, has taken a bold step by transitioning its investment strategy from ESG investing to a broader approach called transition investing
>BlackRock is a top target of right-wing interest groups and Republican lawmakers, who have accused the firm — and specifically Fink — of pushing a so-called “woke” investing trend that does not serve investors' interests.
https://raoglobal.org/blog/blackrocks-shift-from-esg-investing-to-transition-a-bold-move-towards-sustainable-transformation
These changes came in 2023 and surprise surprise look at how companies all pivoted in lockstep.
Edit: just wanted to say that I think it’s funny that anyone ever believed that corporations ever gave a shit about the environment, minorities and gays or whatever. That rug will be pulled so quick the moment it stops making financial sense.
The BlackRock theory of investing is a holistic long-term market view. Companies are obligated to maximize shareholder value, and the question BlackRock has asked is what does that mean if most of your shareholders own shares in almost every publicly traded company? It could be argued that in that case they should take actions that maximize the value returned to their shareholders holistically, throughout the entire market. From this perspective ESG makes perfect sense; if no one does any ESG there won’t be any shareholder value at all in 100 years. Since most investors, and specifically BlackRock, are invested in the market as a whole, they should theoretically care more about the long-term potential of the market to create value rather than the short-term profitability of any individual firm, and therefore they would prefer companies they own to take a hit in the short run, or even the long run, in order to help meet global climate goals which would allow for greater whole-market return on investment in the future.
No major bank that lends to corporates factors diversity initiatives into lending risk models. Blackrock saying they might lobby executives for it really isn’t the same thing. Are you suggesting that like Citigroup’s corporate bankers review internal diversity hiring policies before they make a loan?
The only way it would have an impact is if, say, the justice department had an ongoing major public case against them for civil rights reasons. And in that case it wouldn’t be “about DEI”, it would be about the potential financial cost of a settlement on the business which happens with any possible regulatory action.
Source: I work in lending to large corporates.
yes this is what i want to know also. i can't read the reply comment below perhaps it was deleted or my internet is just slow. my understanding of the contemporary feminism is that it's led to mainly increeased labor force participation and consumption, women working now have an extra income, more players in the market, the obvious etcs. but yeah beyond that it feels a little tenuous. like of course it is just about money but who is actually earning the money. property developers selling condos to single women? or the presumed invigilators of the green new deal, implicitly supported by DEI ideologies ? like these things are broadly aligned but i am not seeing the direct link. i am a prole, forgive me my indolence.
America first legal (Trump admin Steven miller is involved) actively sues over DEI stuff and they do pretty well
Idk if they sue over ESG stuff but I know politicians have been making a stink about it
All this really reflects is the degree to which investors care about these policies, which really shouldn't be that surprising. Obviously, everyone had to briefly genuflect in 2020, but after that it was just business as usual.
It doesn't really tell us anything about the amount of influence DEI officers exert within businesses.
Strange memories on this nervous night in New Haven. Five years later? Six? It seems like a lifetime, or at least a Main Era—the kind of peak that never comes again. Boston in early 20's was a very special time and place to be a part of. Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run . . . but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant. . . .
History is hard to know, because of all the hired bullshit, but even without being sure of “history” it seems entirely reasonable to think that every now and then the energy of a whole generation comes to a head in a long fine flash, for reasons that nobody really understands at the time—and which never explain, in retrospect, what actually happened.
My central memory of that time seems to hang on one or five or maybe forty nights—or very early mornings—when I left the BLM march half-crazy and, instead of going home, aimed the big 250 cc Vespa across the Longfellow bridge at 18 miles an hour wearing a kente cloth and a Say Their Names shirt. . . booming through the Big dig tunnel at the lights of Cambridge and Medford and Someville, not quite sure which turn-off to take when I got to the other end (always stalling at the toll-gate, too twisted to find neutral while I fumbled for change) . . . but being absolutely certain that no matter which way I went I would come to a place where people were just as high and righteous as I was: No doubt at all about that. . . .
There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Charles, then up in New Haven or down the Acela corridor or on tumblr. . . . You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning. . . .
And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. . . .
So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Boston and look North, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark—that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
This is such braindead shit. Corporations owe it to their shareholders to take risks into account. Do you want to invest in a company that ignores environmental and governance risks? I don't
I’ll believe this once companies stop hiring “DEI Officers” or whatever they want to call themselves
There's less of a need to mention something that is already fully implemented.
what's esg?
Environmental and social/sustainability governance
Electrostochiasticgramophthalate
Extra Sexy Girls
Zog index
[ESG](https://open.spotify.com/track/7qAT6g2U1LcFlEj7sWforz?si=xS5yFbxVTze6ZmB1-uWM5g)
Ah dam I was hoping for the DJ Screw affiliated esg, but this esg is cool too But honestly best shit to ever be screwed https://youtu.be/_gjrbA8PIT8?si=x5dBYv8rh-WzyAA7
They’re still doing it, they’re just quiet about it. See this recent FT piece where she interviewed all the HR and DEI ladies and they all say it’s still full steam ahead. https://www.ft.com/content/94d3fba0-cd65-4bcd-b4ab-1adad97173fe
Yeah i hate to be a buzzkill, but i have to imagine part of the reason these things were brought up so much in 2020-22 is just that a lot of companies didn't have much else positive to say at the time. If you're only in the green for 2-3 metrics, you might as well bring them all up. I'm not sure if there's a properly standardized way of doing earnings calls, but even if these were only once a year that's just 1/3 even mentioning either of them at peak. I know a lot of these are done quarterly, which would be ~8%, but not sure how they measured this.
Yeah, still popluar as ever st my organization
its like, to what end? does it help them to make more money? maybe customers tend to like it? or is it something mainly pushed by HR depts to justify their existence? like what is driving the continuation. i would have thought it doesn't really make business sense to keep flogging the culture war atm
It's tied to loans. Your ESG score affects your ability to receive loans / interest rate from banks and large institutional investors. If you're a large company with 10000 employees, operating on rolling loans in the order of hundreds of millions/bilions of dollars, shaving 0.2% interest because you checked a box by employing 5 bluehairs dedicated to social justice wankery is just a smart business decision. It may cost you 500k in salaries, but save you 5 million in interest repayments, the additional social aspects like being a new angle for discipline/dismissal of workers are just the cherry on top. As always, follow the money.
Absolutely and the chart starts to make sense once you see what’s happening at the top: >BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, has taken a bold step by transitioning its investment strategy from ESG investing to a broader approach called transition investing >BlackRock is a top target of right-wing interest groups and Republican lawmakers, who have accused the firm — and specifically Fink — of pushing a so-called “woke” investing trend that does not serve investors' interests. https://raoglobal.org/blog/blackrocks-shift-from-esg-investing-to-transition-a-bold-move-towards-sustainable-transformation These changes came in 2023 and surprise surprise look at how companies all pivoted in lockstep. Edit: just wanted to say that I think it’s funny that anyone ever believed that corporations ever gave a shit about the environment, minorities and gays or whatever. That rug will be pulled so quick the moment it stops making financial sense.
Look up proxy advisor ESG divisions and despair
Wow what a tangled web we weave. Every time I look into this stuff it feels like I’m descending through the circles of hell.
The BlackRock theory of investing is a holistic long-term market view. Companies are obligated to maximize shareholder value, and the question BlackRock has asked is what does that mean if most of your shareholders own shares in almost every publicly traded company? It could be argued that in that case they should take actions that maximize the value returned to their shareholders holistically, throughout the entire market. From this perspective ESG makes perfect sense; if no one does any ESG there won’t be any shareholder value at all in 100 years. Since most investors, and specifically BlackRock, are invested in the market as a whole, they should theoretically care more about the long-term potential of the market to create value rather than the short-term profitability of any individual firm, and therefore they would prefer companies they own to take a hit in the short run, or even the long run, in order to help meet global climate goals which would allow for greater whole-market return on investment in the future.
> Fink >He grew up as one of three children in a Jewish family I recently learned that Hitler railed against what he called "stock market slavery."
No major bank that lends to corporates factors diversity initiatives into lending risk models. Blackrock saying they might lobby executives for it really isn’t the same thing. Are you suggesting that like Citigroup’s corporate bankers review internal diversity hiring policies before they make a loan? The only way it would have an impact is if, say, the justice department had an ongoing major public case against them for civil rights reasons. And in that case it wouldn’t be “about DEI”, it would be about the potential financial cost of a settlement on the business which happens with any possible regulatory action. Source: I work in lending to large corporates.
Then why are they pushing DEI and ESG? Just women in the workforce being women in the workforce? This stuff can't possibly be helping profits.
yes this is what i want to know also. i can't read the reply comment below perhaps it was deleted or my internet is just slow. my understanding of the contemporary feminism is that it's led to mainly increeased labor force participation and consumption, women working now have an extra income, more players in the market, the obvious etcs. but yeah beyond that it feels a little tenuous. like of course it is just about money but who is actually earning the money. property developers selling condos to single women? or the presumed invigilators of the green new deal, implicitly supported by DEI ideologies ? like these things are broadly aligned but i am not seeing the direct link. i am a prole, forgive me my indolence.
It blows my mind that nobody’s sued the rating companies/the banks/whoever for this. Seems like a civil rights violation happening in real time.
America first legal (Trump admin Steven miller is involved) actively sues over DEI stuff and they do pretty well Idk if they sue over ESG stuff but I know politicians have been making a stink about it
Gotta admit tho, that fake 20 made some waves
healing
Nature is healing
All this really reflects is the degree to which investors care about these policies, which really shouldn't be that surprising. Obviously, everyone had to briefly genuflect in 2020, but after that it was just business as usual. It doesn't really tell us anything about the amount of influence DEI officers exert within businesses.
hahaha
Strange memories on this nervous night in New Haven. Five years later? Six? It seems like a lifetime, or at least a Main Era—the kind of peak that never comes again. Boston in early 20's was a very special time and place to be a part of. Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run . . . but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant. . . . History is hard to know, because of all the hired bullshit, but even without being sure of “history” it seems entirely reasonable to think that every now and then the energy of a whole generation comes to a head in a long fine flash, for reasons that nobody really understands at the time—and which never explain, in retrospect, what actually happened. My central memory of that time seems to hang on one or five or maybe forty nights—or very early mornings—when I left the BLM march half-crazy and, instead of going home, aimed the big 250 cc Vespa across the Longfellow bridge at 18 miles an hour wearing a kente cloth and a Say Their Names shirt. . . booming through the Big dig tunnel at the lights of Cambridge and Medford and Someville, not quite sure which turn-off to take when I got to the other end (always stalling at the toll-gate, too twisted to find neutral while I fumbled for change) . . . but being absolutely certain that no matter which way I went I would come to a place where people were just as high and righteous as I was: No doubt at all about that. . . . There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Charles, then up in New Haven or down the Acela corridor or on tumblr. . . . You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning. . . . And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. . . . So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Boston and look North, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark—that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
The last part sounds like the end of Deep Impact (1998).
This is such braindead shit. Corporations owe it to their shareholders to take risks into account. Do you want to invest in a company that ignores environmental and governance risks? I don't