LogFAQs > #965133569

DrizztLink posted...

Like, if the ESG measures environmental impact, Amazon's s***ass labor practices wouldn't be included in the metrics because labor and environmental concerns are different measurements with different variables.

I believe each value of Environmental (how good you are to your environment), Social (how good you are socially, to workers and people), and Governance (how transparent you are with your company), it's supposed to summed up into one big number. But looking more into it, there isn't ONE unbiased corporation that scores everyone. Literally you can buy an analyst to do it for you and spit out those numbers for you as long as you're certified is how I imagine it after reading this statement.

A variety of governmental organizations and financial institutions have devised ways to measure the extent to which a specific corporation is aligned with ESG goals. According to a 2021 study done by the NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business, which looked at over 1,000 studies, "studies use different scores for different companies by different data providers."[2]
-From Wikipedia on ESG if that wasn't obvious from the citation numbers.

So yeah it's what I figured doing a cursory reading. You're going to have a bunch of different ESG values even for the same stock. The following is a theoretical example, Tesla could be rated a 7 ESG by Sony, but rated 5 by Nintendo, and 3 by Microsoft, all based off of how they rate and value each individual score. So does ESG have any meaning then? Possibly? Maybe find the right analyst or company that scores it.

Currently right now it appears companies offer ESG stocks and are marketing it towards environmentally conscious investors who don't have all the time in the world to look through everything. You ever got your stock statements from your retirement fund every quarter? It's a fucking book to read through. Nobody has time to go through all that data with a fine tooth comb. We just hope the people we believe in have our interests at heart rather than funding their own pockets sadly.

It does appear that SOME effort was put into ESGV but I don't know EXACTLY what effort was done. And obviously ESGV scoring is going to be different from the S&P 500 ESG index (which before today I didn't even know existed.)

https://www.thestreet.com/etffocus/market-intelligence/s-p-500-esg-index-tesla-walmart-facebook-wells-fargo
Reading into this you see Tesla added last year, one year ago nearly, along with walmart. But here's the funny part of the article

With the index getting market cap-weighted after the selected components are identified, this ends up looking a whole lot like a plain vanilla S&P 500 ETF.

https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/esg/sp-500-esg-index/#data
I looked into it, and I see Exxon as #10.

I don't even. I wish there was a table explaining reasoning behind some of these acquisitions and boots from the S&P 500 ESG. But it makes no sense to me. I'm not educated enough in financial science to find it quickly beyond just googling each company. But from what I can see and with general knowledge this is pretty laughable.

The only reason why I bothered finding this much info on this, is because I'm an ESGV investor (a big one at least relative to my money), and I'm a bit hurt finding out about this. I figured just throw money at ESG stocks and you're being good and environmentally friendly, but it doesn't seem like that so far. I guess I needed to do more research.