Florida, Utah Take on ESG Farce - If you thought Disney made the "corporate social responsibility" crowd look bad, how about Russia?

[Ubiquitous]

Florida’s effort to defend its schools against the Walt Disney Co. has
exposed the empty rhetoric of “stakeholder capitalism.” Now Utah is shining a
light on the broader movement for “corporate social responsibility.” In both
cases, aggressive virtue signals may conceal political agendas that are not
in the interest of consumers, investors, workers or voters. Moreover,
attempts to grade companies on how responsible they are have recently yielded
results that are almost beyond belief.

Karen Pierog reports in the Bond Buyer on Utah’s scrap with one of the
credit-ratings giants:

Utah’s top elected officials demanded on Thursday that S&P Global
Ratings cease applying environmental, social, and governance factors
to the state through the use of what they called a politicized rating
system based on indeterminate factors.

A letter to S&P signed by Gov. Spencer Cox, Treasurer Marlo Oaks, other
state constitutional officeholders, legislative leaders, and Utah’s
Congressional delegation, stated their objection “to any ESG ratings,
ESG credit indicators, or any other ESG scoring system that calls out
ESG factors separate from, in addition to, or apart from traditional
credit ratings.”

Utah enjoys a top credit rating but worries that political factors may
pollute the process of judging the creditworthiness of bond issuers. The
letter states:

S&P acknowledges that “having a social mission and strong
[environmental, social, and governance] characteristics does not
necessarily correlate with strong creditworthiness and vice versa.”
S&P’s ESG credit indicators politicize what should be a purely financial
decision. This politicization has manifested itself in the capital
markets where, for example, banks are pressured to cut off capital to
the oil, gas, coal, and firearms industries. ESG is a political rating
and should be characterized as such...

No financial firm should substitute its political judgments for
objective financial analysis, especially on matters that are unrelated
to the underlying businesses, assets, and cash flows it evaluates. This
is especially true of a properly regulated independent entity like S&P
that is charged with providing objective clarity and insight. The use
of ESG-related quantitative metrics and analytical frameworks confounds
the distinction between subjective normative judgments and objective
financial assessments. It is therefore unconscionable for S&P to weigh
in on indeterminate and normative questions...

While it may be difficult to deliver “forward looking opinion[s] about
the capacity and willingness of an entity to meet its financial
commitments as they come due,” integrating this analysis with the
political whims of the day is unacceptable. If they are not political,
but are instead financially material, then they would be captured in
the traditional credit analysis. ESG indicators are, therefore, not
necessary.

So far, S&P isn’t responding to the letter from Utah. A report from the
company states:

Our ESG credit indicators provide additional disclosure and transparency
at the entity level and reflect our opinion of the influence that
environmental, social, and governance factors have on our credit rating
analysis.

In S&P’s defense, one could argue that they are simply responding to demands
from political activists within pension funds and large financial
institutions—and Biden administration financial regulators.

Beyond S&P’s ESG credit indicators related to the firm’s credit ratings, the
Utah officials also take aim at ESG scores issued by a separate part of S&P.
The Utahans write:

Even advocates of ESG accept that there is no agreed-upon standard for
ESG reporting and that various ESG sub-components are inherently
incommensurable. How, for example, should environmental goals be
prioritized over social ones, or governmental goals over environmental
ones? This is to say nothing of what factors may populate the social
realm...

Nevertheless, S&P has pressed ahead and in the process generated some
truly baffling results. For example, S&P gave Russian-controlled energy
producers higher ESG ratings than similar entities in the U.S. Russian
energy giants Gazprom and Rosneft outscored American energy companies
ExxonMobil and Chevron on S&P’s ESG scale. This despite the fact that
Vladimir Putin’s Russian government is the majority owner of Gazprom
and owns a 40% stake in Rosneft—the same government that recently
invaded neighboring Ukraine in an unprovoked and unjustifiable attack,
in violation of international law. That attack appears to be
degenerating into a total war on all Ukrainians, including noncombatant
civilians, in violation of the Geneva Conventions, and has resulted in
thousands of civilian casualties and over 10 million displaced persons
to date.

While S&P recently removed all Russian company scores from their
website, it is inconceivable how these energy giants, controlled by a
corrupt and reckless regime—and having been sanctioned for that regime’s
misadventures before—managed to cobble together ESG scores up until a
few weeks ago that exceeded those of law-abiding American companies
critical to U.S. energy security.... S&P also gave the Chinese state-
owned China Petroleum & Chemical Corp oration a higher ESG score than
ExxonMobil and Chevron, despite human rights violations by the Chinese.

We also note that Russia’s leading bank, Sberbank was sanctioned by
both the U.S. and the European Union in response to Russia’s annexation
of Crimea in 2014, and was cut off from the U.S.-led financial system
upon Russia’s invasion of Ukraine this year. Inexplicably, however,
Sberbank’s S&P ESG score was higher than that of the largest American
bank, J.P. Morgan.

As for the credit indicators related specifically to S&P’s credit ratings,
the Russian energy firms did score lower than the U.S. energy firms on
governance, but had the same scores on social and environmental factors. Are
we to believe that Putin-controlled companies are just as socially and
environmentally sound as U.S. firms controlled by shareholders?

It appears that ESG is not about creating fair assessments of corporate
behavior. So what is it really about? Utah Treasurer Marlo Oaks takes a crack
in a release about the state’s letter:

ESG is about controlling and forcing behaviors. It attempts to do
through capital markets what activists and their government allies
have been unable to do through democratic processes. It is a political
score that, intentionally or not, can result in market participants
using economic force to drive a political agenda.

--
Let's go Brandon!

[Siri Cruise]

In article <20220426-1...@news.giganews.com>,

Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

> Florida’s effort to defend its schools against the Walt Disney Co. has

Yeah, Disney's political contributions to republicans was a
severe blow to the law.

> exposed the empty rhetoric of stakeholder capitalism

It exposed Disney to an employee mutiny and threatenned boycott.
But DeSantis is puffing it up for a presidential campaign so he
wants the controversy to show how bravely he is ignoring
Floridian housing issues. So rather than letting it blow over, he
wants to drive a huge payroll and the sales taxes to another
state.

> Utah’s top elected officials demanded on Thursday that S&P Global
> Ratings cease applying environmental, social, and governance factors
> to the state through the use of what they called a politicized rating
> system based on indeterminate factors.

And if S+P ignores them? Utah sticks out their tongue at them?

S+P doesn't care if Utah has a snit. They care about their
reputation. They want bond buyers to turn to them to accurately
analyze bonds.

> S&P acknowledges that “having a social mission and strong
> [environmental, social, and governance] characteristics does not
> necessarily correlate with strong creditworthiness and vice versa.

S+P cares about what bond buyers are demanding to know about
bonds. Some bond buyers make decisions based on environmental,
social, and governance. They are free to buy what bonds they want
at what interest rate. They are free to consult S+P or meditate
on their navel. Utah doesn't get to dictate how buyers decide to
buy.

> No financial firm should substitute its political judgments for

Idiot. A financial adviser will offer whatever advice in its
competentcy its clients request. Utah like rest of you commies
doesn't get to tell private businesses how to run their business.

S+P clients are free to consult other financial advisors.
Entrepreneurs are free to create a competing company and entice
S+P clients to the new company.

You commies have zero idea how free markets and capitalism works.

> In S&P’s defense, one could argue that they are simply responding to demands
> from political activists within pension funds and large financial

So you're whining because they are trying to give their clients
information their client want.

> Biden administration financial regulators.

So SEC is an S+P client? You are saying a government client gives
the government power to control a company. You are a communist.

> It appears that ESG is not about creating fair assessments of corporate
> behavior. So what is it really about?

It's about S+P keeping its customers satisfied. If those
customers feel S+P is inaccurate, they'll go elsewhere. Those
customers don't care when Utah whines how unfair it is.

> ESG is about controlling and forcing behaviors. It attempts to do
> through capital markets what activists and their government allies
> have been unable to do through democratic processes. It is a political

Since Congress doesn't make Twitter a common carrier, you want a
private party, Musk, to use capital markets you have been unable
to do through democratic processes. You're a commie and a
hypocrite.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:31:16 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <20220426-1...@news.giganews.com>,
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> Florida’s effort to defend its schools against the Walt Disney Co. has
>
>Yeah, Disney's political contributions to republicans was a
>severe blow to the law.
>
>> exposed the empty rhetoric of stakeholder capitalism
>
>It exposed Disney to an employee mutiny and threatenned boycott.
>But DeSantis is puffing it up for a presidential campaign so he
>wants the controversy to show how bravely he is ignoring
>Floridian housing issues. So rather than letting it blow over, he
>wants to drive a huge payroll and the sales taxes to another
>state.

<LOL> Only a total idiot would believe Disney could pack up and leave.