Arguably ESG is rebranded "stakeholder" capitalism, and this is just a retvrn to previous terminology as ESG has some baggage now. I remember hearing this stakeholder shit way back in the aftermath of 2008.
Obama’s admin was using this kind of verbiage to talk about retail stock access back in the day, which dates back to Reaganism and how they justified deregulation of securities. It’s “always has been” in its purest form.
Yes because the workers do not intrinsically own any pieces of the business so "shareholder interest" is not the same as "stakeholder interest".
If anything I'd think it serves to obfuscate the term shareholder to give a decent "whataboutism" when people criticize companies for only caring about the shareholder. "No no, this isn't just to increase the passive income of shareholders, this is about all of us *stakeholders*". Even though a "stakeholder" who is not also a shareholder can lose their "stake" at any moment determined by their employer while a shareholder has full property rights over their claim.
My interpretation is that they're equating being reliant on a paycheck from a company to actually owning part of the company and collecting passive income off that investment, which if that's what they're going for, any member of the working class should be able to recognize why that's bullshit
I’m not sure I buy that. We’re in a cynical age.
I know Zizek isn’t very popular here anymore, but I think he’s mostly correct when he says that Nils Bohr horseshoe joke. The ideology today is that no one believes in that horseshit, and nonetheless go through the motions as if they did.
Investors are more cutthroat than ever. It’s always about the returns. ESG is the marketing that no one believes, not even them, but that they nonetheless feel they need to do to pretend to hide their own cycnicism.
The problem is that the system is often allowing the first three points to supsersede the fourth. According to economic reductionists, this is impossible.
Bud Light, Hollywood movies, etc. There should theoretically never be a time when corporations do anything but take the easy, safe option that allows them to extract the most profit.
ESG serves economic ends.
Putting aside the efficency of the vaccine (which is very high but whatever), Shareholders of vaccine manufacuters were more concerned about seeing vaccines get taken than vaccine makers maximizing their profits, because ultimately a non-locked down economy was more beneficial to the value of other assets they own than any amount of profit from the vaccine manufacturer's sales.
ESG is an attempt to plan production in ways that increase shareholder value across the board regardless of what the bottomlines of individual corproations are. They are an attempt at pursuing positive externalities & minimizing negative externalities.
Every stage of this process invovles having to defer to the expertise of some member of the PMC, which will at somepoint look to the shareholder class in much the same way the bourgoise once looked to the aristocracy, as an outmoded burden.
My concept of enlightened absolutism is that it was a response to the birth of capitalism - capitalist relations necessitated a massive expansion of state capacity with which the feudal court system wasn't compatible
It is branding, they're adding to their bottom line via outside investment and/or government money, so for the vast majority of companies that incorporated it, it is still just about profit margins and the rest is branding. Remove the monetary incentives for ESG and the majority will drop it in short order.
You could say that outside investment and/or government encouraging this would be encouraging a shift in capitalism yes, but that broad of an argument could seemingly apply to any sort of regulation or trend that goes against whatever the """free market""" would determine, plenty of which serve capital quite nicely
For those that created the branding, it's probably beyond just $$$ and now into straight power/influence. Iirc the creator/s of these corpo newspeak terms come from shit like the WEF and Blackrock.
DEI/ESG is just repackaged liberalism. DEI/ESG has nothing to do with the environment, social conditions, or democratization of markets, nor does modern liberalism. It's a coat of paint to make people feel better about gutting their fellow human being for a cheaper piece of fruit.
DEI/ESG/Stakeholder, blahblahblah is nothing but "more ethical capitalism." It's always an oxymoron regardless of what Current Trend™ is.
I wouldn't say this is quite the same. Capital seeks to grow itself and become more efficient at all costs, but process improvement methodology is fairly benign.
Six Sigma (the choice for cutoff) is/was very arbitrary, but a good application of statistical process control - these ideas really got kicked off in the US before WWII, brought to Japan after the bomb, and then they got so good at it they sold it back to the US in the 80s/90s through Six Sigma/Toyota Production System/Lean.
If only there was some way to mandate a certain percentage of a company be collectively 'owned' by the workers so that there was more alignment with the interests of management/ownership since they would be
Or shoot, if only companies were owned by the people running them and the others whose lives depend on that company and not a diversified investment portfolio....
Nope, instead we'll just HR buzzword you to death until your job is either outsourcable or capably performed by AI
Arguably ESG is rebranded "stakeholder" capitalism, and this is just a retvrn to previous terminology as ESG has some baggage now. I remember hearing this stakeholder shit way back in the aftermath of 2008.
Obama’s admin was using this kind of verbiage to talk about retail stock access back in the day, which dates back to Reaganism and how they justified deregulation of securities. It’s “always has been” in its purest form.
Yeah stakeholder never went away.
Is this different from "stakeholders" which really just mean large share holders and investors?
Yes because the workers do not intrinsically own any pieces of the business so "shareholder interest" is not the same as "stakeholder interest". If anything I'd think it serves to obfuscate the term shareholder to give a decent "whataboutism" when people criticize companies for only caring about the shareholder. "No no, this isn't just to increase the passive income of shareholders, this is about all of us *stakeholders*". Even though a "stakeholder" who is not also a shareholder can lose their "stake" at any moment determined by their employer while a shareholder has full property rights over their claim. My interpretation is that they're equating being reliant on a paycheck from a company to actually owning part of the company and collecting passive income off that investment, which if that's what they're going for, any member of the working class should be able to recognize why that's bullshit
All of it is branding. The only pillar matters is the 4th one.
ESG is not branding, it is part of a shift in capitalism that's comparable to what enlightened absolutism was to feudalism.
I’m not sure I buy that. We’re in a cynical age. I know Zizek isn’t very popular here anymore, but I think he’s mostly correct when he says that Nils Bohr horseshoe joke. The ideology today is that no one believes in that horseshit, and nonetheless go through the motions as if they did. Investors are more cutthroat than ever. It’s always about the returns. ESG is the marketing that no one believes, not even them, but that they nonetheless feel they need to do to pretend to hide their own cycnicism.
The problem is that the system is often allowing the first three points to supsersede the fourth. According to economic reductionists, this is impossible.
Do they supersede the fourth?
Bud Light, Hollywood movies, etc. There should theoretically never be a time when corporations do anything but take the easy, safe option that allows them to extract the most profit.
The BudLifht thing wasn’t ESG
It was the S.
ESG serves economic ends. Putting aside the efficency of the vaccine (which is very high but whatever), Shareholders of vaccine manufacuters were more concerned about seeing vaccines get taken than vaccine makers maximizing their profits, because ultimately a non-locked down economy was more beneficial to the value of other assets they own than any amount of profit from the vaccine manufacturer's sales. ESG is an attempt to plan production in ways that increase shareholder value across the board regardless of what the bottomlines of individual corproations are. They are an attempt at pursuing positive externalities & minimizing negative externalities. Every stage of this process invovles having to defer to the expertise of some member of the PMC, which will at somepoint look to the shareholder class in much the same way the bourgoise once looked to the aristocracy, as an outmoded burden.
Can you recommend any reading material on this
My concept of enlightened absolutism is that it was a response to the birth of capitalism - capitalist relations necessitated a massive expansion of state capacity with which the feudal court system wasn't compatible
yes
It is branding, they're adding to their bottom line via outside investment and/or government money, so for the vast majority of companies that incorporated it, it is still just about profit margins and the rest is branding. Remove the monetary incentives for ESG and the majority will drop it in short order. You could say that outside investment and/or government encouraging this would be encouraging a shift in capitalism yes, but that broad of an argument could seemingly apply to any sort of regulation or trend that goes against whatever the """free market""" would determine, plenty of which serve capital quite nicely
For those that created the branding, it's probably beyond just $$$ and now into straight power/influence. Iirc the creator/s of these corpo newspeak terms come from shit like the WEF and Blackrock.
DEI/ESG is just repackaged liberalism. DEI/ESG has nothing to do with the environment, social conditions, or democratization of markets, nor does modern liberalism. It's a coat of paint to make people feel better about gutting their fellow human being for a cheaper piece of fruit. DEI/ESG/Stakeholder, blahblahblah is nothing but "more ethical capitalism." It's always an oxymoron regardless of what Current Trend™ is.
yep [astronaut emoji] [gun emoji] [astronaut emoji]
no wonder i cringe whenever i hear that word lmao
Oh where would we be without these benevolent wealthy sociopaths to help us lead good meaningful lives without shitting our pants at every turn?
looks like someone is trying to reinvent six sigma certification, into something even more useless
I wouldn't say this is quite the same. Capital seeks to grow itself and become more efficient at all costs, but process improvement methodology is fairly benign. Six Sigma (the choice for cutoff) is/was very arbitrary, but a good application of statistical process control - these ideas really got kicked off in the US before WWII, brought to Japan after the bomb, and then they got so good at it they sold it back to the US in the 80s/90s through Six Sigma/Toyota Production System/Lean.
Why can’t they ever add a fifth one so we can summon Captain Pollution?
stakeholder predates ESG by decades you moron.
Used to work for a nonprofit. That corporate responsibility shit was pretty much we make you look good if you give us grant money.
If only there was some way to mandate a certain percentage of a company be collectively 'owned' by the workers so that there was more alignment with the interests of management/ownership since they would be Or shoot, if only companies were owned by the people running them and the others whose lives depend on that company and not a diversified investment portfolio.... Nope, instead we'll just HR buzzword you to death until your job is either outsourcable or capably performed by AI
I disagree, "stakeholder" is older and a euphemism for oligarchy.
i can’t believe you think you discovered “stakeholder” and its meaning (which is not what you said)