ESG – Extreme Socialist Garbage

Philanthropy has been replaced by Purpose. An ESG score (Environment, Social & Governance) of less than 50 (Rating 1 to 100), is regarded as creating “too much risk” – company’s ability to raise capital is linked to its ESG score. A company’s ECG score is driven by factors such as climate change, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). (a company’s board of directors can receive a higher ESG rating for diversity over competence).

It is one step away from the China’s Social Credits System:

China’s social credit system is a government program being implemented nationwide to regulate its citizens’ behaviour based on a point system. Under this system, citizens are ranked in different areas of civil life using data collected from court documents, government, or corporate records, and in some cases, citizen observers.

Hmmm!

Many businesses now are going one step further and aiming for B Corp certification, a far more extreme version of ESG.

Super funds, peoples’ retirement savings, generate their income through investments. In Australia, 43 Super Funds identify as ESG – they are signatories to an ESG protocol. This puts them in breach of the basic charter by which all Super Funds must adhere to:

“If they invest with any other purpose than delivering hard returns, they will breach the obligation to act in the “best financial interests” of members”.

Not just Super Funds, but business in general – is it their role to be actively involved in what is really, social engineering? They should be free to “employ the best person for the job”, not “employ the best LGBTQ+ person” to satisfy a diversity quota?

There is also much “propaganda” (bullshit) being pushed about the benefits of diversity:

An economic argument for gender diversity, backed by a growing literature, suggests that board gender diversity can serve as a driver for better performance and increased financial returns.

The truth is businesses excel because of the quality of its people. Yes, some diverse companies have excelled, but so have many not nearly as diverse. It is not a performance determiner, just a classic case of selective statistics!

It is not difficult. Just select the best person, be they man, woman or one of any subjectively assigned 72 genders (and counting), and the results follow.