There is bad-faith activity on this thread when a substantive comment like this is downvoted without rebuttal.

Not really, it seems like the poster's own grievances about ESG. I've been asked these questions at every job I've ever had, and that preceded ESG by decades... I wish people here could use reasonable judgment instead of a kind of judgment that reflects "something is possibly true technically, but not really realistic, but I'm going to treat as true anyway because it runs against a mainstream/political narrative so someone rebut me"

> ESG funds will buy more of your company’s stock if you have a higher percentage of women on boards, for example, and other metrics.

This is as close to a neutral and objective description of ESG as could be written in English! That is not grievance, and it should not be downvoted as such.

Yeah, that is a neutral description of it. My issue wasn't the description of ESG, but the conclusions drawn about how ESG is driving things (which I pointed out, significantly predated ESG) thats exactly the point I'm making about being obtuse for no reason at all. It's abundantly clear from my post that my issue is the conclusions the poster drawn about how ESG drives things, and not the poster's description of ESG on its own. Yet you are apparently under the belief pointing this out rebuts me? That's not reasonable at all.

I was showing that his description of ESG hardly qualifies as grievance that deserves downvoting. If we agree that his description was neutral, great!

It is not being downvoted because of the description, it is being downvoted because of the conclusions drawn about ESG which are baseless and easily discounted by anyone's personal experience in the business world prior to like, 2 years ago when it became a buzzterm. This has been explained to you twice yet you are pretending to be so obtuse as to not understand why the post is validly being downvoted. The only thing that is bad faith is you continuing to engage in this conversation with me while not putting any effort in to actually grok what is being discussed.

I have inside knowledge with respect to fund investment.

What does that have to do with my point?

What you're describing would likely violate Title VII and the EEOC.

Blatant violations occur way more often than you think; nobody cares.

Technically-legal-but-still-violating-the-spirit happens if the people involved bother asking legal about it.

Oh, I'm sure violations happen all the time. But I very much doubt such violations primarily benefit minorities. There's a reason these laws exist, after all. Further, "blatantly violating" these laws as a publicly traded company, to game ESG funds seems like a poor risk:reward gamble.

If violations to improve ESG score are a poor risk:reward gamble, what are the rewards of these other violations that "happen all the time"? Are the rewards even greater than improvement of ESG score?

1. The types of companies ESG funds can invest in (publicly traded companies) probably aren't very likely to blatantly violate any laws. There are significant repercussions for such behavior. With privately held companies, there's a lot more room to work in shady nonsense like we're discussing in part because there's so much less oversight.

2. I can at least point to plenty of evidence that this happens. Take this 2021 UC Berkeley Study [1] showing that job applicants with black-sounding names were significantly less likely to get called back than applicants with white-sounding names. What's the motivation there? Good ol' fashioned racism. Y'know, the exact motivation that prompted the laws in question to be written.

[1] https://eml.berkeley.edu//~crwalters/papers/randres.pdf

If I wanted to dox myself I could list job postings. Companies do not care about unenforced laws.

It’s not my job to argue with HR about what constitutes legal hiring practices.

Not really, it seems like the poster's own grievances about ESG. I've been asked these questions at every job I've ever had, and that preceded ESG by decades...

I wish people here could use reasonable judgment instead of a kind of judgment that reflects "something is possibly true technically, but not really realistic, but I'm going to treat as true anyway because it runs against a mainstream/political narrative so someone rebut me"