After blowback, ESG-minded corporations ‘pull back’ on discussing the topic publicly, forging ahead in a quieter way
As it turns out, the communist plot of the corporate globalists to bankrupt the West and enslave the world wasn’t a big hit with the people, so the executives promoting the scheme have given it up… but only in public. While it might seem like the brass of companies like Vanguard and BlackRock (operating as de facto and unelected politicians) bowed to the pressure and dissolved the notion of a corporate credit score and its associated policies, they simply adjusted fire, and are now operating from behind the corporate curtain.
That’s according to a new report by H. Claire Brown, published at The Wall Street Journal on Monday, excerpted below:
Companies are talking less about sustainability in earnings calls and marketing materials, but they are mentioning it nearly as frequently as ever in their financial reports and disclosures.
…
Companies’ financial disclosures are mentioning sustainability almost as much as ever, with the trend line showing a steep climb between 2019 and 2021 before flattening out.
…
‘We haven’t seen any real diminution in the amount of quality of reporting on sustainability,’ said Julie Gorte, senior vice president for sustainable investing at Impax Asset Management. ‘What you don’t see is the companies coming out and having a big marketing splash about it.’
Per Brown, “roughly 97%” of the “ESG” and “sustainability” references came from the financial statements and disclosures, while a “handful” (presumably 3%) of the mentions could be found in “corporate announcements and board meeting transcripts.”
So what’s with the secrecy? As Gorte acknowledges, “Everyone wants to keep their head below the lip of the fox hole politically and not be a target[.]” Apparently these executives understand the power of a “go woke, go broke” boycotting campaign, and after watching what happened to Bud Light, proving that that no corporation “too big to fail,” they’re not taking any chances.
Also worth mentioning is this admission:
A major barrier to progress is that green projects are expensive. Business leaders in the Morgan Stanley survey cited access to capital as a significant hurdle to realizing sustainability strategies.
But wait, I thought the progressives kept telling us that the “green” transition is all about a stronger economy, that “renewable energy” (read: wind turbines and solar panels) are “cheaper” alternatives to gas, oil, and coal, and that while a free market yields exploitation and poverty, their “stakeholder capitalism” will mean more wealth for all?
About a month ago, I wrote an essay on the corporate industry’s sleight of hand, exchanging the “ESG” term for “transition investing,” which can be read here—which ties into one last detail in Brown’s article:
A September 2023 survey by the Conference Board of more than 100 large companies found that nearly half said they had experienced ESG backlash, and 61% expected it to intensify.
‘About half of companies who experienced the backlash have adjusted the terminology. They don’t use ESG. They might refer to sustainability instead,’ said Andrew Jones, senior researcher at the Conference Board, a nonprofit research organization that studies businesses. ‘We’re even seeing some companies talking more in the language of clean air, clean water, and economic opportunity—effective and palatable terms other than ESG.’
Now how many conservatives would argue with stated goals like “clean air” or “clean water” or “economic opportunity”? Zero! In fact, the desire for a clean and healthy planet, with infinite amounts of economic opportunity, is the very reason that conservatives push back against the progressive climate agenda so hard—climate progressivism is defined by environmental destruction and financial ruin for the people—but, consider that these terms now might be code for something much more sinister.
Image: Free image, Pixabay license.