The mission statements and sustainability reports of investor- and society-driven companies are becoming more comprehensive year after year. Their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategies, which often consisted primarily of declarations of intent, are supposed to be robustly measured against the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment criteria. Will everything be alright? Not at all.
It is the smokescreen method: Deficits and conflicts of interest that are apparent at first glance are covered up by the greatest possible babble (which Generative AI has probably finally found its purpose) and diversionary tactics. There is also little danger of trouble from the ESG auditors, as they include well-known names from the capital market and not critical NGOs.
Experience with scandals already uncovered also teaches us that under the veil of beautiful texts and images on the subject of sustainability, all sorts of things remain possible:
Perpetual Chemicals (PFAS): It took a persistent lawyer
Wirecard case: It took a persistent journalist
Opioid crisis: It took two persistent investigators
What these examples also demonstrate is that only effective regulatory oversight could have stopped these undesirable developments in time. But in all of the cases mentioned, the responsible authorities failed miserably.
Instead, relying solely on the capital market or bodies such as the supervisory board seems to be a mistake, even in the age of miles of Corporate Governance Statements completely naive.
By the way, things aren't looking any better with the major international forums: Where will the 2024 World Climate Conference take place? Exactly…
Did you like this article? Become a member!