All in all, unfortunately, nothing new for me. But worth seeing of course for all interested. Incidentally, this is exactly one reason why I avoid explicit ESG stories, but also SRI. I see here exceptionally the politics (and even on EU level) in responsibility. As long as all interest groups, scientists and well-founded analysts do not jointly define an ESG-SRI standard, which is unchangeable, investment houses and the like will define standards according to their own rules. And I certainly don't want that. For me, this is a no-go. Politics and the public consensus are the deciding factors, which have to find a moral-ethical-social and ecological consensus and not exclusively companies, which connect their own interests with it. And such things, like the sudden classification of previously ESG-incompatible things like weapons and nuclear power into suddenly ESG-compliant constructs, I find really impossible and indiscussable. And as long as it is done like this, ESG/SRI is not a decisive feature for an investment for me.
•
44
•
@InvestmentPapa The same game as always: politicians set the framework conditions and companies and the financial world try everything at their disposal to maximize profits and meet current demand, which currently includes sustainable investments. If politicians do not set clear rules or offer ways of circumventing them, it is the duty of companies to exploit this in order to remain economically competitive and act in the interests of their shareholders.
••