When they say pollute in the headline, they mean only C02, which makes the headline misleading clickbait even for people who don't understand what the S and G in ESG stand for.
> It can very well be that a high-emitting firm is very good at governance or employee satisfaction. There is no strong relationship between employee satisfaction or any of these things and carbon intensity,” Goltz argued.
> “Even the environmental pillar is pretty unrelated to carbon emissions,” he added, with this rating partly determined by factors such as a company’s use of water resources and waste management practices.
It's amazing how something so utterly unremarkable has already inspired 4 unhinged comments.
I hate hate hate how pollution has been reduced to co2 and nothing else. Don't have to worry about global warming if contaminated water and soil kill us all first.
It's more that the other kinds of pollution are local and most of the world will be quick to fine you or throw you in jail if you start to pollute too much of them.
> for people who don't understand what the S and G in ESG stand for.
They stand for Social and (corporate) Governance. I just looked it up myself. I wish these articles would explain that. Even the link on the word ESG is unhelpful.
> It can very well be that a high-emitting firm is very good at governance or employee satisfaction. There is no strong relationship between employee satisfaction or any of these things and carbon intensity,” Goltz argued.
> “Even the environmental pillar is pretty unrelated to carbon emissions,” he added, with this rating partly determined by factors such as a company’s use of water resources and waste management practices.
It's amazing how something so utterly unremarkable has already inspired 4 unhinged comments.