I've said this before and stand by it. As the human race, we simply don't have the political will to save our environment and thus ourselves. Likely Americans are the worst but certainly we're not alone. I really don't have hope that our corporations, politicians and 1% will have their 'come-to-jesus' moment just in time. Regardless of the color of their hats, they are not the good guys and not the cavalry coming to our planet's rescue.
This vicious cycle of American entropy exists because Republicans are not conservative, they are #CORPservative - in servitude to their corporate and billionaire donors.
That dark money relationship always insures that regulation dwindles to nothing, hidden tax breaks will always be available, and the dependency of media on boosting the right wing agenda will never waver.
If only we could get over the notion of shareholders being the beneficiaries of corporate capitalism, we could see the real problem more clearly. Managerial capitalism. Share buybacks and contortions to make quarterly Street expectations cannot be separated from non-cash compensation in the form of options. These devices are justified on the basis that a firm must be "competitive to attract top talent." The talent consists too often not in innovations in the conduct of the business, but in acting as influencers of Street opinion. Share price is, after all, only the collective opinion of everyone else's opinion of what a stock is worth as an asset. The better the C-Suite is at encouraging a favorable opinion by force of personality and pulling the numberless levers of permissible accounting and tax judgments that affect timing of recognition of income and losses.
The C-suiter and the Street, along with hot-money customers, are those who bid up valuation independent of actual business operations. This is a trader mentality, not an investor mentality. Traders look for angles, technicalities, and, ultimately. the greater fool.
I was something of a Wall Street lawyer in the mortgage backed securities way, and my opinion here is among the gentlest I hold.
I think Professor Reich is partially correct, but I don't accept his absolutist rhetoric, painting every company as evil just as much as I reject this Republican Anti-Wokism. Of course, the Republican movement is highly influenced by the evil geniuses of The Heritage Foundation and others. In fact what we are hearing is those 1 percenters, who are aligned with Friedman, running scared because it is starting to work. The EU Security Regulators, recently approved legislation requiring the standardized and independently audited ESG reporting, linked to a companies financial returns and subject to the same regulatory penalties as financial reporting fraud (12,000 companies are affected.) The US SEC has completed its public review of similar regulations and is poised to publish something in the next months... to be implemented next year (if now not blocked politically.) It is also true that approximately $35 Trillion dollars of invested Assets Under Management are directed to financial instruments guided by a focus on ESG/Impact investing (this is about a third of the assets under management in the world.) 400 companies with over 9m employees have taken the climate pledge. These are signals are starting to cause concern, perhaps fear with the Anti-Woke, xenophobic racists who would destroy our planet to protect their vested interests.
I am not speaking from the sidelines, I am a senior business executive who has run large companies and serves on corporate boards and I am 'Woke' and at 65 currently enrolled in masters program in Sustainability Science at Harvard. I personally don't think we will solve the Environmental, or many of the Social problems of the world without corporations contributing and in fact in many areas there are significant profits to be made in doing so. If you step back and look at it, corporations can organize and scale solutions that can have a positive outcome. For example, the pending energy transition from fossil fuels is the largest business opportunity in the next 100 years, but perhaps not for the Koch Brothers or Heritage Foundation cabal but for other companies and investors who are seeing an gusher of capital at very high valuations. But there are very few 'WIN / WIN' choices and outcomes, so there is always some bad mixed with some good, even when we try hard so you have to look through the noise to demystify trends.
Although I may sound Pollyanna, I too am cynical. Of course there will be failures, setbacks and very bad examples of corporations acting horribly. But I'd like to invest my energy from a perspective of positive change not more polarizing rhetoric, which wastes energy and time that we do not have.
And there are positive proof points that abound, supported by rationale government regulation that enables stakeholders to have a seat at the table and places the economic costs on the externalities. I would suggest reviewing the long term performance of Denmark, Norway, Germany, Singapore, Costa Rica, Switzerland, even France would provide better (and profitable) models. Investing in social goods, such as universal healthcare, education, recognizing environmental costs and the costs of social injustice combined with smarter collaborative business policies/regulation (and yes laws) do lead to much better outcomes than the US has experienced. Here I agree with Reich, we need stronger laws, and regulations, but that are enabling successful outcomes for all stakeholders.
Following the false gospel of Milton Friedman and sellout to the evil geniuses behind the Heritage Foundation and examples like Citizens United have caused significant harm to our society (and the world); I think we should put our shoulder behind positive change to reverse that and avoid painting every company and business person with the same brush. It is not perfect, but it can improve.
I am worried and rail against this politization of ESG, I think they evil geniuses are running scared. At the same time, I think we are running out of time to avoid the worst effects of our climate problems and falling into a culture war on this is extremely poor timing. I wish I knew how to resolve this polarizing dissent, most people (and most corporations) want a better, inclusive outcome and we are being prevented from discussing and progressing it rationally by the deepening absolutist divisive rhetoric from both sides.
Obviously, I agree with you, Robert. The problem is HOW? How do we get a bunch of reprobate politicians, to cut their personal incomes from graft? How do we get these same reprobates to lessen their power? How do we get the general public to see the need for reform? There are so many needs facing us. We Need to have campaign reform, to lessen the amount of time spent campaigning for re-election and power. We need to get corporate money OUT of politics,, We need to get rid of ALL lobbyists. All this, while saving our planet from the pending doom of global warming, a plan for how to support, 10 billion humans at a responsible level and find necessary things to keep them busy in the face of Artificial Intelligence. How to improve the way we educate our children. How top convince these 10 billion future humans that we are all the same animal and that appearance, loves, dislikes, are superficial and we don't all have to look the same, believe the same, love the same. At the same time we have to honor and respect all others who are not criminally insane.
Once again you have hit the nail squarely on the head. Corporations caused the climate crisis and most of our environmental problems. Can they be relied upon to solve these problems without being forced to? No! They should be forced to pay their fair share of taxes. They should be required to pay for the damage they have done (or financed). They’re not going to do anything of their own volition.
Such efforts at "self regulation" flop because they are usually platitudes rather than regulation grounded in policy.
None of the "club" proposing ESG actually wants governance to be mandated. Further, the E part of ESG ends up in opposition to the S part over issues of global population.
A conservative neighbor expressed how his peer group would resolve the tension by "doing something" about the issue of too many people on the planet. I can only imagine what a complete telling of this group's ideas would look like.
I think there's an important thread to add to your conversation which would change it. "B" corporations. These are corporations designed to honor the triple bottom line and having to prove it. Shareholders know this when they buy into them.
* This is creating a better contract for corporations.
* This is humans finding a way to channel deeper values into corporations.
Can you see how that would shift what you are saying?
AND Considering this and in general, I don't think it's WRONG to allow "retirement plan managers to include E.S.G. considerations in their investment plans." It isn't always green washing. It can be authentic. It can be a start.
Most importantly, it relieves one of the pressure points that keeps corporations only serving money. To free them up a little from that pressure. To make them a little less vulnerable to punishment if they make this choice.
So yes let's take on the CURRENT corporate model. But also leave room for those experimenting with NEW AND BETTER MODELS.
Our refusal to dispense with or even temper corporate capitalism has led many to somehow believe that a humanist capitalism model is not possible, nor will it change anything in American society or politics for the better. The river has irrevocably breached the dam, the horses have bolted, whatever metaphor you wish. We have learned one thing with certainty: corporations will not change behaviour or policy until the level of financial punishment for their unlimited pursuit of greed exceeds their ability to achieve exorbitant profit.
I suggest we all view the film Network, and focus on Ned Beatty's Oscar nominated speech in the board of directors room. If it were made today the subject would be antisocial media.
Let me suggest David Webber's The Rise of the Working-Class Shareholder, Labor's Last Best Weapon, (Harvard University Press, 2018). We have the power if we use it but you can't use power you don't know you have.
There is a new book The Big Myth, by the authors of Merchants of Doubt. I haven't. read it, but it looks like a worthwhile investment. If you don't know Merchants of Doubt see the video.
Sigh ... it always comes back to the corporate capitalism focusing on maximizing their profits in the short term. As long as they can buy politicians, it'll never change. And how can laws come about when they should be crafted and passed by those same politicians.
We get what is - we understand what you're talking about. But what you suggest as possible remedies/actions are leaves in the wind, whereas corporate powers are solid walls. If past disasters, bubbles and collapses haven't changed anything, a mere supporting of putting money into politics most certainly won't put holes in those walls.
Things are most likely to see dramatic change when something dramatic happens. In one of Kim Stanley Robinson's cli-fi novels, "New York 2140" - that shift away from greed eventually comes, but only after several climate tipping points change our world ... Unfortunately, as a species, as a whole, we are a gigantic dumb mass of inertia. Still, one seismic change, such as a global disaster or another world war, will put that mass into action and that mass absolutely does have the power to topple corporate walls ... but at what cost, at what cost.
The most socially responsible action pension plans and corporations can take to allay environmental and social problems is to refrain from putting money into politics, and to support campaign finance reform" Does anybody in their right mind think that corporations and pension plans will ever stop putting money into politics or support campaign finance reform? Even if we can get laws passed providing stiff penalties against corporations putting money into politics, which is possible WHEN THERE ARE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS OWNING BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT IN THE OVAL OFFICE, big money will find its way into politics. The same is true about campaign finance reform. I've been hearing about stopping those evils for decades, and what has happened? Nothing. It's time to fight the fight on another level. That doesn't mean we give up on them, but we must fight fire with fire. I'd love nothing better than to never have to see another email or ad begging me for money that I don't have, most of us don't have. The only ones who benefit from this system are media companies, and many other business that generate funds through political ads. Limiting the amount of money a candidate can spend to get elected can be capped. That's a fight worth fighting.
As for ESG, it shouldn't be fought through corporations. I don't even want them involved in this area. These should be fought for through legislation and from public pressure. Corporation have to be mandated by law to stop poisoning the environment. We've seen that they will never self correct. They have to be forced to treat their workers right, pay them fairly, and not overcharge their customers. What is becoming clearer to me is that we must work toward a managed form of capitalism. I'm talking about a severely managed form. Managed by all the stakeholders, workers, customers, the general public and stock holders. Nothing short of this will be satisfactory. Time has proven this to be true. Put on your seat belts, people; we are in for a ride, and a war like this country hasn't seen in a long time.....
It always seems to boil down to "Citizens United," does it not?
I've said this before and stand by it. As the human race, we simply don't have the political will to save our environment and thus ourselves. Likely Americans are the worst but certainly we're not alone. I really don't have hope that our corporations, politicians and 1% will have their 'come-to-jesus' moment just in time. Regardless of the color of their hats, they are not the good guys and not the cavalry coming to our planet's rescue.
This vicious cycle of American entropy exists because Republicans are not conservative, they are #CORPservative - in servitude to their corporate and billionaire donors.
That dark money relationship always insures that regulation dwindles to nothing, hidden tax breaks will always be available, and the dependency of media on boosting the right wing agenda will never waver.
If only we could get over the notion of shareholders being the beneficiaries of corporate capitalism, we could see the real problem more clearly. Managerial capitalism. Share buybacks and contortions to make quarterly Street expectations cannot be separated from non-cash compensation in the form of options. These devices are justified on the basis that a firm must be "competitive to attract top talent." The talent consists too often not in innovations in the conduct of the business, but in acting as influencers of Street opinion. Share price is, after all, only the collective opinion of everyone else's opinion of what a stock is worth as an asset. The better the C-Suite is at encouraging a favorable opinion by force of personality and pulling the numberless levers of permissible accounting and tax judgments that affect timing of recognition of income and losses.
The C-suiter and the Street, along with hot-money customers, are those who bid up valuation independent of actual business operations. This is a trader mentality, not an investor mentality. Traders look for angles, technicalities, and, ultimately. the greater fool.
I was something of a Wall Street lawyer in the mortgage backed securities way, and my opinion here is among the gentlest I hold.
I think Professor Reich is partially correct, but I don't accept his absolutist rhetoric, painting every company as evil just as much as I reject this Republican Anti-Wokism. Of course, the Republican movement is highly influenced by the evil geniuses of The Heritage Foundation and others. In fact what we are hearing is those 1 percenters, who are aligned with Friedman, running scared because it is starting to work. The EU Security Regulators, recently approved legislation requiring the standardized and independently audited ESG reporting, linked to a companies financial returns and subject to the same regulatory penalties as financial reporting fraud (12,000 companies are affected.) The US SEC has completed its public review of similar regulations and is poised to publish something in the next months... to be implemented next year (if now not blocked politically.) It is also true that approximately $35 Trillion dollars of invested Assets Under Management are directed to financial instruments guided by a focus on ESG/Impact investing (this is about a third of the assets under management in the world.) 400 companies with over 9m employees have taken the climate pledge. These are signals are starting to cause concern, perhaps fear with the Anti-Woke, xenophobic racists who would destroy our planet to protect their vested interests.
I am not speaking from the sidelines, I am a senior business executive who has run large companies and serves on corporate boards and I am 'Woke' and at 65 currently enrolled in masters program in Sustainability Science at Harvard. I personally don't think we will solve the Environmental, or many of the Social problems of the world without corporations contributing and in fact in many areas there are significant profits to be made in doing so. If you step back and look at it, corporations can organize and scale solutions that can have a positive outcome. For example, the pending energy transition from fossil fuels is the largest business opportunity in the next 100 years, but perhaps not for the Koch Brothers or Heritage Foundation cabal but for other companies and investors who are seeing an gusher of capital at very high valuations. But there are very few 'WIN / WIN' choices and outcomes, so there is always some bad mixed with some good, even when we try hard so you have to look through the noise to demystify trends.
Although I may sound Pollyanna, I too am cynical. Of course there will be failures, setbacks and very bad examples of corporations acting horribly. But I'd like to invest my energy from a perspective of positive change not more polarizing rhetoric, which wastes energy and time that we do not have.
And there are positive proof points that abound, supported by rationale government regulation that enables stakeholders to have a seat at the table and places the economic costs on the externalities. I would suggest reviewing the long term performance of Denmark, Norway, Germany, Singapore, Costa Rica, Switzerland, even France would provide better (and profitable) models. Investing in social goods, such as universal healthcare, education, recognizing environmental costs and the costs of social injustice combined with smarter collaborative business policies/regulation (and yes laws) do lead to much better outcomes than the US has experienced. Here I agree with Reich, we need stronger laws, and regulations, but that are enabling successful outcomes for all stakeholders.
Following the false gospel of Milton Friedman and sellout to the evil geniuses behind the Heritage Foundation and examples like Citizens United have caused significant harm to our society (and the world); I think we should put our shoulder behind positive change to reverse that and avoid painting every company and business person with the same brush. It is not perfect, but it can improve.
I am worried and rail against this politization of ESG, I think they evil geniuses are running scared. At the same time, I think we are running out of time to avoid the worst effects of our climate problems and falling into a culture war on this is extremely poor timing. I wish I knew how to resolve this polarizing dissent, most people (and most corporations) want a better, inclusive outcome and we are being prevented from discussing and progressing it rationally by the deepening absolutist divisive rhetoric from both sides.
Obviously, I agree with you, Robert. The problem is HOW? How do we get a bunch of reprobate politicians, to cut their personal incomes from graft? How do we get these same reprobates to lessen their power? How do we get the general public to see the need for reform? There are so many needs facing us. We Need to have campaign reform, to lessen the amount of time spent campaigning for re-election and power. We need to get corporate money OUT of politics,, We need to get rid of ALL lobbyists. All this, while saving our planet from the pending doom of global warming, a plan for how to support, 10 billion humans at a responsible level and find necessary things to keep them busy in the face of Artificial Intelligence. How to improve the way we educate our children. How top convince these 10 billion future humans that we are all the same animal and that appearance, loves, dislikes, are superficial and we don't all have to look the same, believe the same, love the same. At the same time we have to honor and respect all others who are not criminally insane.
Once again you have hit the nail squarely on the head. Corporations caused the climate crisis and most of our environmental problems. Can they be relied upon to solve these problems without being forced to? No! They should be forced to pay their fair share of taxes. They should be required to pay for the damage they have done (or financed). They’re not going to do anything of their own volition.
ESG has become a hot mess, likely by design.
Such efforts at "self regulation" flop because they are usually platitudes rather than regulation grounded in policy.
None of the "club" proposing ESG actually wants governance to be mandated. Further, the E part of ESG ends up in opposition to the S part over issues of global population.
A conservative neighbor expressed how his peer group would resolve the tension by "doing something" about the issue of too many people on the planet. I can only imagine what a complete telling of this group's ideas would look like.
no corporate money for politics ... sounds good, but how to convince the greedmasters to go along with this?
I think there's an important thread to add to your conversation which would change it. "B" corporations. These are corporations designed to honor the triple bottom line and having to prove it. Shareholders know this when they buy into them.
* This is creating a better contract for corporations.
* This is humans finding a way to channel deeper values into corporations.
Can you see how that would shift what you are saying?
AND Considering this and in general, I don't think it's WRONG to allow "retirement plan managers to include E.S.G. considerations in their investment plans." It isn't always green washing. It can be authentic. It can be a start.
Most importantly, it relieves one of the pressure points that keeps corporations only serving money. To free them up a little from that pressure. To make them a little less vulnerable to punishment if they make this choice.
So yes let's take on the CURRENT corporate model. But also leave room for those experimenting with NEW AND BETTER MODELS.
My dad always said “there is more devil in man than God”
Our refusal to dispense with or even temper corporate capitalism has led many to somehow believe that a humanist capitalism model is not possible, nor will it change anything in American society or politics for the better. The river has irrevocably breached the dam, the horses have bolted, whatever metaphor you wish. We have learned one thing with certainty: corporations will not change behaviour or policy until the level of financial punishment for their unlimited pursuit of greed exceeds their ability to achieve exorbitant profit.
I suggest we all view the film Network, and focus on Ned Beatty's Oscar nominated speech in the board of directors room. If it were made today the subject would be antisocial media.
Let me suggest David Webber's The Rise of the Working-Class Shareholder, Labor's Last Best Weapon, (Harvard University Press, 2018). We have the power if we use it but you can't use power you don't know you have.
There is a new book The Big Myth, by the authors of Merchants of Doubt. I haven't. read it, but it looks like a worthwhile investment. If you don't know Merchants of Doubt see the video.
Sigh ... it always comes back to the corporate capitalism focusing on maximizing their profits in the short term. As long as they can buy politicians, it'll never change. And how can laws come about when they should be crafted and passed by those same politicians.
We get what is - we understand what you're talking about. But what you suggest as possible remedies/actions are leaves in the wind, whereas corporate powers are solid walls. If past disasters, bubbles and collapses haven't changed anything, a mere supporting of putting money into politics most certainly won't put holes in those walls.
Things are most likely to see dramatic change when something dramatic happens. In one of Kim Stanley Robinson's cli-fi novels, "New York 2140" - that shift away from greed eventually comes, but only after several climate tipping points change our world ... Unfortunately, as a species, as a whole, we are a gigantic dumb mass of inertia. Still, one seismic change, such as a global disaster or another world war, will put that mass into action and that mass absolutely does have the power to topple corporate walls ... but at what cost, at what cost.
"
The most socially responsible action pension plans and corporations can take to allay environmental and social problems is to refrain from putting money into politics, and to support campaign finance reform" Does anybody in their right mind think that corporations and pension plans will ever stop putting money into politics or support campaign finance reform? Even if we can get laws passed providing stiff penalties against corporations putting money into politics, which is possible WHEN THERE ARE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS OWNING BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT IN THE OVAL OFFICE, big money will find its way into politics. The same is true about campaign finance reform. I've been hearing about stopping those evils for decades, and what has happened? Nothing. It's time to fight the fight on another level. That doesn't mean we give up on them, but we must fight fire with fire. I'd love nothing better than to never have to see another email or ad begging me for money that I don't have, most of us don't have. The only ones who benefit from this system are media companies, and many other business that generate funds through political ads. Limiting the amount of money a candidate can spend to get elected can be capped. That's a fight worth fighting.
As for ESG, it shouldn't be fought through corporations. I don't even want them involved in this area. These should be fought for through legislation and from public pressure. Corporation have to be mandated by law to stop poisoning the environment. We've seen that they will never self correct. They have to be forced to treat their workers right, pay them fairly, and not overcharge their customers. What is becoming clearer to me is that we must work toward a managed form of capitalism. I'm talking about a severely managed form. Managed by all the stakeholders, workers, customers, the general public and stock holders. Nothing short of this will be satisfactory. Time has proven this to be true. Put on your seat belts, people; we are in for a ride, and a war like this country hasn't seen in a long time.....
Corporate Social Responsibility has to be one of the best OXYMORONS ever coined to date ...