Talk:Environmental, social, and governance

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mobalatero, Razzinnari, ZHEN ZHU (RUTGERS), Seanmurray33.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Environmental, social and corporate governance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140924041547/http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/fiduciary_duties.htm to http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/fiduciary_duties.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110612215802/http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/responsiblebuisness/MoskowitzResearchProgram to http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/responsiblebuisness/MoskowitzResearchProgram

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV Concern

In addition to the tone flag on the article, I'm concerned this article has NPOV issues. ESG's are highly criticized amongst right wing and conservative organizations as being antithetical to capitalism. Compliance with the law, they often argue, is the duty firms have to shareholders and that ESG's inhibit the success of corporations.

I am not taking a stance on this. The lack of mentioning it however does not help the case that Wikipedia is unbiased and neutral.

• See this article as evidence that there is a groundswell of opposition to ESGs. 107.77.213.68 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I just came over and was going to make the same point. For example, this sentence in the intro: "Research shows that such intangible assets comprise an increasing percentage of future enterprise value". That is definitely a matter of contention and this article shouldn't be claiming that. Beingafactoid (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Came in to report that this article really feels biased as even source 153 article which is cited as in support of ESG as producing higher average returns contains certain criticisms which the article should highlight but did not even mention in passing. The research suggested that only strong governance consistently produced superior returns across all regions whereas the E and S parts are mixed. 223.18.141.234 (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

There is plenty of left wing criticism of ESGs as well, seeing that it comes from the WEF. I see it as similar to greenwashing, corporations trying to evade any real responsibility for their actions via cheap and easy PR. WP may indeed be biased, no argument there, but towards corporations and vested interests. Just because right wingers bitch and moan about left wing bias all the time doesn't make it true.--ෆාට් බුබුල (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

luizpuodzius

Poderias traduzir caso queira? Att 187.20.115.60 (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite of opening paragraphs needed

This is Wikipedia, not some propaganda site. The first few paragraphs (if not the entire article) is written like a marketing piece rather than anything objective. 68.60.202.174 (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It should be separated out as a "Precursors" or "Prehistory" section (or subsection of "History"), and "ESG" should not be suddenly blurted out in the middle of a lengthy rambling account, as if it were something already-there, when the whole point of history is to explain in detail: who made it, when was it made and recognized (instead of putting it in the opening paragraphs; where there should only be a simple note, e.g. "established by the US in 2004, the ESG is ..."). Additionally, even as a "Precursors" section, it still a bit one-dimensional, and shows a lack of research on related work or threads or cross-links, e.g. the "Goodwill" measure of accounting theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA00:747B:0:0:0:193B (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Criticism

Is there a section for criticism? Mahie rahman (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

you can't criticize left! 86.63.197.2 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

my guy, who are you kidding? here's some material i found in 2 seconds of searching:

• https://news.yahoo.com/trump-gop-party-snowflakes-beta-090320262.html
• https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-06-27/book-bans-critical-race-theory-wisconsin
• https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/opinion/deborah-lipstadt-ron-johnson.html

bonus, you can't ban links! 70.89.22.217 (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe after the 2 seconds searching you should have taken the time to read the links ... I think you have instead in your riposte affirmed the point of the person you were replying to ;)! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:2E:80D9:7733:EA55 (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I just added an empty section to add to Glenn984 (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed your change; there is already a section for "Public reaction" (with actual content) in the article. Plus, this section of the Talk page is clearly not a serious discussion of meaningful changes to be made to the article. CaptainAngus (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Actual criticism

Barring any sort of political warfare as seen above, like promiscuous use of the word socialist, is there any steps that could be taken to address actual criticisms of ESG? Pretty much every topic has some criticism section.

Whether this be arguments that address the controversial nature of certain ESG policies (i.e. diversity policy resulting in affirmative action hiring, or environmentalist policies that promote wind power in the expense of nuclear in Germany, or certain companies just simply not affecting much environmental policy at all like a software corporation), or providing counterexamples to the idea that all ESG-aligned companies are good investments (the S&P ESG index has historically underperformed the NASDAQ 100 for example), to addressing systemic bias in agencies that rate companies' ESG (larger corporations tend to get higher ESG scores, as well as those that happen to be EU-US vs elsewhere, certain criteria like environment being more important by some agencies, diversity by others). FIREYSUNSET (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fierysunset: To make sure I'm following you, you're suggesting that a section on 'EGS Criticisms' be added to the article, right? If so, I'd definitely help with that (as best I could). I think such a change could go pretty far in addressing the 'neutrality' concern at the top of the article. CaptainAngus (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Correct. I can probably begin to find some links/articles. First three below I used to criticize biases. The first and third are somewhat interconnected; the first one summarizes a lot of the more detailed points of the third.

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/08/07/ratings-that-dont-rate-the-subjective-world-of-esg-ratings-agencies/

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/16/the-false-promise-of-esg/

https://bailard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Company-Size-Bias-in-ESG-Scores-Impacts-Small-Cap-JIESG-Bailard.pdf FIREYSUNSET (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem with these articles is they speak to market performance, which is too often driven by favorability and speculation. As the first comment in the first article stated: "The reason these rating agencies don’t really focus on risk is that the raters aren’t really interested in company performance, they are interested in social policy. They cloak that interest under the guise of “sustainability of company earnings” or some such. If that’s what they were really interested in (company performance), that would be the key focus of their ratings." Using ESG as a measure of ESG is what's called a self-licking ice cream cone. No, we need actual analysis of the effects of ESG to balance the article. DeknMike (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/how-tobacco-companies-are-crushing-esg-ratings/ 2A02:3032:206:C178:428D:5CFF:FE5C:9E89 (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I just added a section we can start filling with content. Glenn984 (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

No criticism?

ESG is a flagrant distraction from actual corporate crimes (price and economic fixing, slave labor, lobbying) and that's a pretty common sentiment, yet there is no mention of that anywhere 2603:8000:3702:B2D9:F87B:A107:72E2:B7A8 (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

If it's common then please provide the reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Conservatives in Social Concern

The section titled Conservatives seems out of place, in that the other topics in that section deal with facets, of the concept, rather than groups of individuals with a response to the concept. Unfortunately, there is currently no good place to put the paragraph, until perhaps we create a 'criticism' or 'reaction to' section. DeknMike (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Now that ESG scores have caused widespread bank failiures can there be a criticism section

Title 97.94.230.26 (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The who have done what now? Koncorde (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

if you've had your head in the sand like an ostrich the silicon valley bank collapsed and took a bunch of other banks with it in the following days, including european ones, and the most implicated reason why is bad fiduciary policy caused by trying to get a good ESG score, including massive donations to certain political movements directly before the failiure. One would think that certainly justifies the existence of a criticism area of the page, but I know this website is extremely biased anyway and run by people who think they're Minitrue. 198.200.215.5 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but there has been no evidence presented from any reliable source so far that ESG Scores in any way contributed to these bank failures. So we are not going to be putting that into the article. This is no more a generally accepted explanation for these bank failures than "woke politics" being a legitimate explanation. Yes, some talking heads/ commentator at conservative news outlets, such as Fox News, have made such claims but they did not provide any solid evidence and most experts outside have dismissed these explanations. While it might be fair to quote such conservative commentators along with the opposing experts who have dismissed such explanations, we cannot include this argument in the article in any way that implies it's widely accepted since few experts endorse it. Now as for having a criticism section (or including criticism mixed throughout the article), we can and should include current conservative criticism of ESG from certain conservative circles in this article and we don't need to have bank failures be caused by ESG ratings to do so. Such criticism needs only to be sourced to reliable sources and does not beed to be legitimate and/or provable to be included, so long as the article doesn't give undue weight to fringe ideas/views. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

really because I see both the ESG and woke politics explanation for it being used extensively by many people and news outlets et cetera, and also these are not separate things, progressive extremism is the source of the concept of an ESG score to begin with. Here is an inconvinient article in the harvard business review talking about the fiscal ineffectiveness of ESG systems

https://hbr.org/2022/03/an-inconvenient-truth-about-esg-investing

another

https://www.ntd.com/bank-failures-highlight-risks-of-using-esg-in-americans-pension-funds_908920.html

another

https://news.ballotpedia.org/2023/03/14/critics-blame-esg-for-silicon-valley-bank-failure/

and I do not want to hear, at all, that these are sources of unacceptable quality, you wikipedia leftists use literal salon articles to justify your positions and that's fine

from your article on "White genocide conspiracy theory"

"White people are not dying out or facing extermination. [26]"

[26] is this salon article

https://www.salon.com/2018/08/27/donald-trumps-white-genocide-rhetoric-a-dangerous-escalation-of-racism/

absolutely don't want to hear one single word about how those are unacceptable sources 198.200.215.5 (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Article 1 doesn't say anything related to these banking collapses.

Article 2 is a reprint from a notorious right wing conspiracy site "The Epoch Times", is refuted by the sources it uses, and just makes speculative claims.

Article 3 Ballotpedia is reliant on talking points from, no offence, someone whose ideological talking points on the matter are immediately refuted by the actual reality of the collapse and aggregated content. The actual article says little itself other than "Critics say". Those critics then turn out to be Opinion pieces, tabloids etc. Koncorde (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

A criticism section needs sources from non-critics? Wouldn't that make it something other than criticism? 2605:A601:ADC1:8B00:E481:7D78:5F9D:2B44 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Litigation: State of Utah et al. v. Walsh et al

This should be added to litigation section. Posting to talk instead since there seems to be quite a bit of discord on this page. Is this fine to add? If you're an apolitical individual and can add this without bias feel free. This case does seem to fit notability requirements.

Good source: https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/us-republican-states-move-keep-esg-investing-lawsuit-texas-court-2023-03-01/

Notable outlinks: Forum shopping (accusations) Matthew_J._Kacsmaryk (presiding judge) Joe Biden JosephMifsudL0L (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate Link Image

The image that appears when you hover over the link for this topic shows a fly on a piece of excrement. This feels like propaganda against the concept of ESG. What would be a more neutral picture that can be used for this? 198.183.168.10 (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

chatGPT: "A good thumbnail image for Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) could be a picture of a green plant or a group of people holding hands around the globe, representing the idea of sustainability and social responsibility"

Open AI image created:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DALL%C2%B7E_2023-04-01_00.00.55_-_A_good_thumbnail_image_for_Environmental,_Social,_and_Corporate_Governance_(ESG)_could_be_a_picture_of_a_green_plant_or_a_group_of_people_holding_hand.png JosephMifsudL0L (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

an image of larry fink would be the most honest one you could use 198.200.215.5 (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Vanguard statement misleading

I appreciate knowing that at least one investment firm opposes ESG, but I think the additional statements about Vanguard are misleading. Is this article implying that Vanguard performs poorly because it opposes ESG? If so, that needs to be very well clarified and very well supported. Otherwise, I think this is blatantly biased.

Is Vanguard the one and only such firm in the whole world that agrees with Professor Friedman? BluKrome (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Need elaboration on the wordings

In section ===The Rise of Investments with ESG Criteria===, can anybody help complete the sentence of "There has also been March 2021. ". Thanks. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Further need of elaboration

"This year's ESG ranking podium is exclusively European "Nordic countries", with Finland in first place, followed by Sweden in second and Iceland in third." Can anybody help use more precise and clear wordings to help readers? Thanks. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Need quotes to help

"In 2006, the US Courts of Appeals[clarification needed][which?] ruled that there was a case to answer bringing the area of a company's social responsibilities squarely into the financial arena." Writer provided some citation, but I couldn't locate the proper contents, can anybody help? Thanks. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU24 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 May 2024 and 24 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ae2744 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zq2197 (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)