ESG isn't a requirement imposed on investment managers serving the public.
It's a voluntary corporate action.
So is having to get a drivers license, and a car. It not a requirement imposed on by my company or the government or society, but not having it inhibits the jobs, people I will marry, and lifestyle I can have.
I must have a car, commute, and all the other inefficiencies it requires. Just to get income, or I must do without.
In the same vein not having ESG inhibits the investors a company can have.
Its an imposition, not by the market place or regulation, but by an inefficiency imposed on by investors.
ESG = different risk/return profile, not inherently better or worse
This may have been true at the beginning. But as with most things of this nature people/companies figure out the game.
To the point they have an ESG board to make sure the company is in compliance.
NVIDIA is a strong ESG company why?
Well they are striving for energy efficient chipsets. -> Yet are the main components in Data centers are a problem but so what. (how is that green?)
They support "AI for Good" initiatives, is anyone able to quantify these initiatives? no, its a social project.
They have strong diversity reports!!
NVIDIA games the ESG system, and ESG looks the other way because its performing so well.
ESG today is nothing more than an investor imposed inefficiency. It feels good, but don't kid yourself that its changing corporate behavior.
Soon it will become a moralizing hammer on companies, those that don't meet some abstract need will be punished.
Nothing more than a Corporate Cancel Culture.
I would liken it to having a political commissar. Why? Well a company could bring a product to market that makes the world a better place, but it violates one of the tenets say "diversity of workforce", so now the company can't get investors at a favorable exchange rate, or better yet you aren't a favored company in the ESG hierarchy so you have less investment money available.
You could say thats not the point of ESG, I would argue it's the only point of ESG, control.
"OCR concluded..."
So it's one opinion.
"OCR received athletic rosters..."
So...they only looked at names, not at...you know, the humans involved.
"....indicating that male students may occupy up to 61 roster positions on girls' sports teams"
So...basically, every unisex name was counted. So if the girl is named Logan, or Avery, or Harper, or Riley, or Madison, or River...they might be a boy!! And God forbid if Samantha is going by her nickname!
Meanwhile, from Google AI:
Based on testimony from NCAA President Charlie Baker in December 2024, there are believed to be fewer than 10 openly transgender student-athletes competing within the NCAA, out of more than 510,000 total college athletes.