Environmental, social and corporate governance: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Call me an old, unreconstructed gammon but — ''seriously'', financial services multinationals? — If you care about environment, society and governance, put a sock in your [[virtue signalling]] and pay your sodding [[tax]]es. | Call me an old, unreconstructed gammon but — ''seriously'', financial services multinationals? — If you care about environment, society and governance, put a sock in your [[virtue signalling]] and pay your sodding [[tax]]es. | ||
Of course, the point where [[ESG]] jumped the tracks from being a means of [[virtue-signalling]] ones neo-puritanical credentials to the [[Get off Twitter|twittersphere]] to being a regulated, articulated objective of large tracts of the financial services industry — now it has moved beyond a mere marketing device and investment managers have published it in their mandates, and they are even are obliged by ''regulation'' to meet sustainability targets rather than that quaint old-fashioned notion of, you know, return — then the basic wrongheadedness of [[stakeholder capitalism]] rears its head. We are creating a monster that will not vouchsafe ''any'' improvement in the environment, but will open yet another front for the [[regulatory-industrial complex]] to occupy, and [[Rent-extraction|extract rent]] from the disempowered retirees of the world. | Of course, the point where [[ESG]] jumped the tracks from being a means of [[virtue-signalling]] ones neo-puritanical credentials to the [[Get off Twitter|twittersphere]] to being a regulated, articulated objective of large tracts of the financial services industry — now it has moved beyond a mere marketing device and investment managers have published it in their mandates, and they are even are obliged by ''regulation'' to meet sustainability targets rather than that quaint old-fashioned notion of, you know, return — then the basic wrongheadedness of [[stakeholder capitalism]] rears its head. We are creating a monster that will not vouchsafe ''any'' improvement in the environment, but will open yet another front for the [[regulatory-industrial complex]] to occupy, and [[Rent-extraction|extract rent]] from the [[disempowered retirees]] of the world. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
Revision as of 18:03, 11 December 2022
|
Soup du jour. Ideal fodder for that client webinar. And if you are worried you have unhedged risk to it, well — there are always turpitude swaps to see you right.
Call me an old, unreconstructed gammon but — seriously, financial services multinationals? — If you care about environment, society and governance, put a sock in your virtue signalling and pay your sodding taxes.
Of course, the point where ESG jumped the tracks from being a means of virtue-signalling ones neo-puritanical credentials to the twittersphere to being a regulated, articulated objective of large tracts of the financial services industry — now it has moved beyond a mere marketing device and investment managers have published it in their mandates, and they are even are obliged by regulation to meet sustainability targets rather than that quaint old-fashioned notion of, you know, return — then the basic wrongheadedness of stakeholder capitalism rears its head. We are creating a monster that will not vouchsafe any improvement in the environment, but will open yet another front for the regulatory-industrial complex to occupy, and extract rent from the disempowered retirees of the world.