[lowkeyoptimist]

Partially the politicization of it, but also because it is lumping together three issues that the society cannot even broadly agree one of the issues within 'ESG'. I don't think it is difficult to see why "ESG" is political by its nature.

[tfandango]

Thanks this is a nice way of saying what the other poster said :)

I agree, ESG is just a bunch of numbers but if we can't agree on what the right output is then it's political in nature. I wonder if society has a bigger issue with disagreements about the E and S rather than the G, maybe not?

[lmm]

"Society" has plenty of disagreements on the G, but, fortunately for the companies in question, shareholders don't. G measures, essentially, how much the company prioritizes its shareholders.

[lowkeyoptimist]

I think there is a strong case for that, companies concern themselves with governance constantly and I would agree that there is less to be concerned about there. It seems like governance problems have been pretty well worked out over time and there is a good process for that even before the focus on ESG.

E and S are where many draw their political divides so I would tend to agree that is where many of the problems lie within ESG.

[pmart123]

That's most of investing though. Investors won't all agree the operating cash flow, asset base, organic sales growth if there's been M&A, etc. let alone with a P/E, P/FCF, EV/EBITDA ratio makes a company cheap or expensive. Yet, this doesn't make it political in nature though.