CLICK HERE FOR THOUSANDS OF FREE BLOGGER TEMPLATES »
Showing posts with label ESG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ESG. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 11, 2022

The Roots Of ESG And How To Get Rid Of It

The Roots Of ESG And How To Get Rid Of It

ESG exists as part of the WEF’s Great Narrative leading to the WEF’s Great Reset. It is primarily used to attack the US, demolish ing the world’s engine of capitalism and free market economics. It also became provided the bond between Big Business and Big Government. ⁃ TN Editor

At this point, everyone knows about ESG, and everyone knows that companies and firms that embrace it are intent on pushing an environmental, social, and governance agenda, mostly on America. But the full story is very interesting and extremely disturbing.

Recently, I had the chance to hear Vivek Ramaswamy, the founder of Strive Asset Management, speak about ESG, how it came to be, how it functions, and how to combat it.

Ramaswamy said that the problems of ESG are not state or even national economic ones. They make up a transnational, trans-partisan battle for the heart and soul of democracy itself. It is not Democrats versus Republicans, Left versus Right, black versus white, or gay versus straight. Rather, the real issue at stake is democratic-republican self-governance versus monarchy. Ramaswamy said that it is not a 2022 question but a 1776 question. ESG, says Ramaswamy, is a secular religion that started when ideas such as identity and the ability to achieve in life based on race, gender, or sexual orientation rose to the fore.

According to Ramaswamy, there were two toxic ideologies of the 20th century—the first being German Nazism, and the second Soviet-style Marxism. Blend the identity politics of the first with the oppressor-oppressed philosophy of the second and you have planted the seeds of ESG. This, in turn, allows for the application of labels to those who question the new cultural norm. Those labels include, but of course are not limited to, “racist,” “misogynist,” “climate-denier,” and “bigot.” Once those labels are applied, all debate is silenced.

The current problem, said Ramaswamy, began with the 2008 financial crisis. Ramaswamy was working for a Wall Street investment firm. He said anger began to rise when banks received financial bailouts, causing people to begin to question modern American capitalism. It also served as a nursery of sorts to the Occupy Wall Street movement. This movement, running on the fumes of the old progressive ideology, demanded that money be taken from the rich and given to the poor. But the neo-progressive movement was just starting to come into its own, and this movement postulated that the real problem was not poverty or economic injustice but rather racial injustice, bigotry, misogyny, and climate change.

Ramaswamy said that Wall Street saw a way to get off the hot seat. Corporations realized that they could get activists off their backs by doing things such as putting token minorities on corporate boards and championing the combatting of climate change and its supposedly racist impact. But the corporations said that the price would be for the Left to conveniently look the other way with regards to corporate power. In addition to being left alone, these companies also expected that the movers and shakers in government and these movements would give them certain business advantages. Ramaswamy cited a move by Goldman-Sachs in which it said it would not take a company public if it did not have a sufficiently diverse board. Ramaswamy called it a cynical grand bargain or even an arranged marriage between two sides that didn’t even so much as like one another. Ramaswamy likened it to “mutual prostitution,” which resulted in the “Woke ESG Industrial Complex.” This is a far more powerful entity than Big Business or Big Government, which allowed both elements to accomplish together what they could not do on their own.

This created the chance for new asset management companies to ride in on their proverbial white horses in the wake of the ’08 financial crisis. These included companies like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, which would create “better capitalism.” According to Ramaswamy, these three companies, over 15 years, have acquired enough assets to manage more than $21 trillion of investment funds. This money is then used to advance a progressive agenda that would have never survived a legislative session.

Seeing Wall Street’s success, Ramaswamy said that Silicon Valley realized that it would also like a piece of the action. Even back in 2008, the tech lords knew that it was the Left that posed a threat to their burgeoning monopoly on at least a philosophical level. So the tech lords said they would use their corporate power to advance progressivism, doing things like censoring opinions and eliminating “hate speech,” as the Left defined it. In return, the Left would conveniently ignore the tech monopoly.

Seeing how well things worked out for Wall Street and Silicon Valley, much of corporate America would follow suit. Ramaswamy cited Coca-Cola speaking out against Georgia’s voting laws and forcing its employees to take diversity training, including courses on how to be “less white.” At the same time, Coke could ignore its product’s effects on American obesity. Nike could condemn “systemic racism” in America, while people overseas toiled in sweatshops for slave wages and, as Ramaswamy asserted, in conditions of slave labor to make high-end sneakers for sale in the U.S., often to people who might not be able to afford coats for their children.

Even though the two sides still loathe one another, the system, which is the merger of state and corporate power, stays in place because it continues to work so well. Ramaswamy called it the most powerful force in modern American life. Ironically, liberals allowed themselves to forget about their skepticism of big business, and it duped conservatives because the system was presented in the context of the free market. Ramaswamy said that he knows principled people on the left and the right who are deeply concerned about the issue, in part because free speech and open debate in the public square, where all voices and votes count equally, is being neutralized.

That is the “S” or social prong of ESG. Far more sinister, said Ramaswamy, is the “E” prong, or energy. Climate change has been used to envelop the social prong and make it a Trojan horse. The major asset management firms and banks have served as an arm of the government to implement climate change policies, such as the Green New Deal, which could not have passed Congress. Democrats realized that the private sector could be used to that end. Climate Czar John Kerry was able to get companies across the nation to sign a “climate pledge” to put the Green New Deal into effect without any debate or vote in the legislative branch. Ramaswamy said that the tactic has not only contributed to a generational supply/demand imbalance for global energy, but it also hasn’t even been effective. This is because we are in a global energy market, and countries like China and Russia snap up every unit of energy that ESG takes out of play in the West. So, according to Ramaswamy, on the other side of the world, carbon emissions continue unabated. On top of that, Russian and Chinese energy production is much dirtier than it is in the U.S. Methane produced by those countries is far worse than in the U.S.

Read full story here…

Source:  technocracy.news

 

Monday, July 25, 2022

ESG Is A Globalist 'Scam' Meant To Usher In 'One World Government'

ESG Is A Globalist 'Scam' Meant To Usher In 'One World Government': James Lindsay


by Tyler Durden
Sunday, Jul 24, 2022 - 09:30 PM

Authored by Cindy Drukier and Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

James Lindsay, author of “Race Marxism” and other books challenging woke narratives, has taken environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores into his crosshairs, calling ESG a weapon in the hands of “social justice warriors” to shake down corporations and a tool in the hands of those seeking to impose “one world government.”

Lindsay told NTD’s “The Nation Speaks” program in a recent interview that the ESG scoring system was initially conceived as a way for investors to track the likelihood that a corporation would be a good bet for investment over the long term.

“In the early 2000s, a few very socially minded socially activist investors got together and thought up this idea that, well, it’s probably the case that companies that are bad at environmental policy, bad with social responsibility, and bad corporate governance are going to be bad bets in long term investment,” he said.

James Lindsay, co-author of "Cynical Theories," in New York on Feb. 28, 2020. (Brendon Fallon/The Epoch Times)

Lindsay believes the ESG concept was suspect from the very beginning and it’s unclear whether higher scores translated into good long-term profitability for participating corporations.

Worse still, he argued that, over time, ESG scores have been hijacked and “weaponized” by “social justice warriors.”

“They have the leverage to be able to use this like a … financial gun to the head of any corporation that doesn’t do what it wants them to do,” he said, calling it a “blatant weaponization.”

“In fact, it’s racketeering is what it is, is just criminal racketeering, using what looks like a responsible measurement tool as the mechanism. So nobody’s directly responsible for engaging in what is really a mob shakedown of corporations,” he argued.

Lack of transparency in how ESG scores are determined is an open door for abuse, Lindsay further contended.

...

Even more troubling is Lindsay’s argument that ESG fits into a “broader global agenda” that he said wants to make the West energy poor—to the benefit of countries like China—and as a way of social control.

“They want to implement the exact same control system because they see that it works to control people in China,” adding that, in his view, the “power elite” in the West “often do want to control people.”

...

“And so they would be using that as a tool to try to get toward one world government,” Lindsay said.

...

Insider Intelligence estimates that, in 2022, there was $41 trillion in ESG assets under management worldwide.

By 2025, this figure is expected to climb to $50 trillion.

Read more here...

Be the first to Comment.

Blogger's note:  subterrnews.blogspot.com does not send cookies, or collect any information on those using the blog.  However, the blogspot is on google, and google may collect information, and send cookies.  Many of the links that  we connect to do not send out cookies or collect information, but some do.  You are keying in to this blog, and you have agreed to this.

The views of the author do not necessarily represent the opinions of this blog.  They are the views, and opinions of the author(s) of the article.

 

Saturday, March 5, 2022

ESG Scoring Drives Companies Into Sustainable Development

 

ESG Scoring Drives Companies Into Sustainable Development, Aka Technocracy

ESG stands for “Environmental, Social, Corporate Governance” and has been likened to a globalized Social Credit Scoring system for business. If you have a high ESG score, it will be easy to qualify for credit, to get the best deals with vendors and to participate in the global supply chain.

Alas, if you don’t have a high ESG score, you won’t be in business long unless you change your behavior and knuckle under to its demands.

So, how is ESG determined and who sets the rules and guidelines?

First, ESG has nothing to do with the physical aspects of a company, like capital, cash flow or profit. Rather, it concerns intangible factors such as how closely you, your vendors and customers adhere to Sustainable Development and climate change policies.

According to Forbes,

“The story of ESG investing began in January 2004 when former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote to over 50 CEOs of major financial institutions, inviting them to participate in a joint initiative under the auspices of the UN Global Compact and with the support of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Swiss Government. The goal of the initiative was to find ways to integrate ESG into capital markets.”

One year later (2005), an environmental policy wonk, Ivo Knoepfel, wrote a a major paper, Who Cares Wins: Connecting Financial Markets to a Changing World. This 58 page report contained “recommendations by the financial industry to better integrate environmental, social and governance issues in analysis, asset management and securities brokerage.”

The corporate collaborators, far from real people like ordinary citizens, included all the big names one might suspect: World Bank Group, Morgan Stanley, HSBC, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, Citigroup and others.

And just like that, ESG was born.

 

The report summarizes ten innocuous and subjective principles that read much like the UNs’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

U.N. Global Compact Principles

Human Rights

Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights within their sphere of influence; and

Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.

Labour

Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;

Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;

Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and

Principle 6: eliminate discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Environment

Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;

Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and

Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.

Anti-Corruption

Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.*

Who decides ESG standards and scores? It is repeatedly stated that financial analysts are the key operatives:

  • “We invite financial institutions to expand the scope of ESG integration in research to other asset classes impacted by ESG factors, beyond equity.” Beyond equity implies a rating system for bonds, corporate debt and other financial instruments.”
  • “We encourage analysts to further advance the development of valuation methodologies to better deal with qualitative information and uncertain impacts related to ESG issues.”
  • “Financial analysts should expand their understanding and analysis of these factors to other industries.”
  • “Financial analysts should improve their understanding and integration of ESG issues in emerging markets research.”
  • “Financial analysts and investment professionals should take a leading role because they are the specialists best placed to show how ESG issues impact company and investment value.”

To put this in perspective, the financial analyst position at a large financial institution is typically an entry-level job for people just out of college. In reality, they are coached by ESG policies to act like “fact checkers” as they examine these non-tangible aspects of a company. With the stroke of a pen then can upgrade or downgrade a company according to its ESG compliance, but no two analysts would likely come to the same exact conclusion.

Nevertheless, with subjective ESG research reports in hand, senior executives then call on pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, investment funds, etc., to divest themselves of low scoring companies and reinvest in high scoring companies. If they refuse to cooperate, they are branded with a lower ESG score of their own. Lending institutions are approached to examine the ESG value of their loan portfolios. Not high enough to satisfy the “fact checkers”? Then stop loaning money to low ESG companies, or risk being downgraded yourself!

It gets worse from here. The report calls for government force to mandate disclosure:

“We also believe that regulatory frameworks requiring a minimum degree of disclosure and accountability on ESG issues would improve the availability and comparability of data, and therefore support integration in financial analysis.

And for stock exchanges to inform rank-and-file investors and institutions alike:

Stock exchanges, for instance, could include ESG criteria in listing particulars for companies. Both voluntary and market-friendly regulatory approaches are needed to improve disclosure. Both should be flexible enough to allow for diversity of approaches and providers, rather than relying on rigid prescriptions.”

Conclusion

ESG is a globalist scam, and having just said that, my score probably went to zero. It is designed to drive investments and company operating policies into Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. It is also a circular design that once started, reinforces itself with every spin around the financial universe.

Next up will be ESG for individuals, which goes one step further into how you actually think about these things.

What? You own an investment in a dirty old low-ESG company? Own a gas-guzzling car? Big house? Too much grass in your front yard? Work for a low-ESG company? Post social media pictures that lampoon global warming or mask mandates? Well, that shows that you just don’t care, so boom, down goes your score. Now, try to get financing for that new car you want to buy, or get underwritten for a new life insurance or homeowner’s policy.

You get the idea.

Source:  technocracy.news

Blogger's note:  Posted with the permission of the author.

Be the first to Comment.

Blogger's note:  subterrnews.blogspot.com does not send cookies, or collect any information on those using the blog.  However, the blogspot is on google, and google may collect information, and send cookies.  Many of the links that  we connect to do not send out cookies or collect information, but some do.  You are keying in to this blog, and you have agreed to this.

The views of the author do not necessarily represent the opinions of this blog.  They are the views, and opinions of the author(s) of the article.