So, "E."
> It is better to focus simply on the e. Yet even that is not precise enough. The environment is an all-encompassing term, including biodiversity, water scarcity and so on. By far the most significant danger is from emissions, particularly those generated by carbon-belching industries. Put simply, the e should stand not for environmental factors, but for emissions alone.
The point of ESG isn't to save the planet, it's to make the world a better place to live/work in. Union busting is bad for workers and therefore society at large. What's the article's point? That point shouldn't care about social issues? Agree to disagree I guess.
The thesis is "because [ESG] lumps together a dizzying array of objectives, it provides no coherent guide for investors and firms to make the trade-offs that are inevitable in any society," that industry "is not being straight about incentives" and that "the various scoring systems have gaping inconsistencies and are easily gamed."
Co-mingling E, S and G winds up focussing on nothing except making consultants rich.