The funny thing is that the Environmental metric is the only objective one while the Social and Governance ones can be bullshitted and manipulated. Those three things should have never been coupled. It’s all a scam.
Overall, I think trying to improve those things in a systematic way is the only real way to improve them. I want to know how well each company is doing in various areas. We are currently mostly blind to that.
And we should be mindful not to let the ones trying to game and undermine the systems win, and sincerely look at impact in all areas.
[1] Ideally, I think a metric would be able to measure something like a 'meaning of life difference' from different choices (and assign a corresponding metric for say an organization based on certain counterfactuals). Of course that's too difficult in general, but we can strive for example to keep the planet healthy and establish some standard "unit" for a healthy society (could be translated to money, but there could be some issues with that), establishing a trade-off say between say saving someone's life now (through a health intervention), and saving lives in the future by improving planetary conditions (with less pollution). Those things are perhaps surprisingly comparable (and surprisingly linear/additive as well).
There are mentions of Goodhart's Law and it certainly applies somewhat (if we tried simple, naive metrics): but Goodhart's Law doesn't apply when there are real, smart people doing the evaluation, in a dynamic way, using quantitative tools sensibly. And finally there are choices perhaps no such evaluation could capture, questions about what future do we want for ourselves in a broader cultural and artistic sense (which is why in the end freedom to support what you want as an individual is important).
I really think this is going to play a significant part in how we address many large scale issues!