In recent years, we have seen the evolution of companies' sustainability practices, with reservations, it's clear. The acronym ESG (environmental, social and governance) took over the investors' agenda, consumers and employees of corporations, but the moment seems to be one of regression with the return to the pursuit of profit at any cost. With Donald Trump's return to the presidency of the United States, we observe large corporations like the Meta group and the McDonald's fast food chain retreating in their social practices. And the expectation is that all priority areas of the ESG Agenda will be harmed
There is no denying that the primary purpose of a company is value generation and that its perpetuity is related to economic performance. In this way, the acronym ESG should be EESG, in which the economic comes first. After all, without box or return, there is no way to invest in social and environmental practices. The problem is that the only goal cannot be to guarantee profit at any cost, because the company ends up putting its image and brand at risk. AND, with the growth of social networks, being distant from the anxieties and demands of the population is a big problem and can lead to cancellation and boycott, even if momentary, of the brand. That weighs on the wallet
About 10 years ago, more specifically, in August 2015, the negotiations that culminated in the adoption have been concluded, in September, two Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), on the occasion of the United Nations Summit for Sustainable Development. On the occasion, an agreement was reached that includes 17 Goals and 169 targets, involving diverse sustainability themes ranging from issues such as poverty eradication and reduction of inequalities to inclusive economic growth. The agenda must be fulfilled by 2030
Since the SDGs were launched, large corporations embraced the agenda and improved their processes to meet the goals. Stand out, for example, the initiatives in search of diversity, equity and inclusion that have become part of the hiring policies of companies of all sizes. Such policy allowed people of various genders, races, with disabilities or neurodiverse individuals had opportunities in the job market, even though access to higher positions is restricted
On the side of companies, hiring people with different profiles allows the organization to understand the particularities of its consumers, expanding the service network, the sales and, as a consequence, the profit. After all, a brand for everyone generates more value and more return in the long run
Such fact, meanwhile, began to be questioned and a wave of companies and institutions. Recent research released by the Conference Board, American business entity with over a thousand members, it shows that half of the companies have already adjusted their terminology for diversity programs and another 20% are considering a similar change
The fast food chain McDonald's is among the companies that have abandoned commitments to so-called diversity goals, equity and inclusion (DEI), interrupting the requirements for suppliers to adopt such practices. The decision comes after the Supreme Court of the United States ended the use of affirmative action in university admissions
Meta also rolled back a series of policies in these areas and informed employees that they will no longer be required to interview candidates from underrepresented groups for open positions or to seek business with diverse suppliers. Walmart, Nissan Motors, Boing, Ford, Toyota and Harley Davidson have already followed the same path. Walmart announced that it will no longer use race and gender parameters to select supply contracts and has reduced training on racial equity. Other companies like Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola and Uber have withdrawn or softened, in your corporate reports, mentions of diversity criteria in their compensation policies
Here we take the DEI programs as an example, but the regression to the 70s and 80s, when the vision was one of profit-seeking without scruples, it is clear in various areas of sustainability, whether in the social or environmental field. At first, the view is that such objectives generate expenses and not profit. A clear mistake when putting reputation at stake. Rejecting sustainability is shooting oneself in the foot for society and for the companies themselves. Profit at any cost, it costs a lot
