Environmental
Social
Governance
Frankly, these terms are quite puzzling — Environmental, Social, Governance. Aren’t they?
In and of themselves they give little to no guidance to the reader on the purpose and the direction towards which the goal is leading, which isn’t good enough.
The title ought to be self-explanatory.
Clearly, they’re not the guiding stars they should be, and can create a false sense of security.
If they’re not changing the game, then what’s their point?
Can 1% improvement be good enough? Should we be satisfied?
Would you be satisfied?
For example, when we talk of governance, we often refer to transparency.
Can one get sufficient transparency in times of data overload?
What we often really mean is, in fact, trust. Just observe and notice.
We say: “This process isn’t transparent.”
We mean: “This company isn’t unbiased. Can we trust them?”
“Do they really say what they mean, and mean what they say?“
Governance should be about Trust, Honesty, Morals and Ethics, Intent and Purpose.
These new words instantly put you somewhere on a scale.
Environmental should be replaced with Ecological, Natural, Organic, Zero Waste.
Social should be Equality of Opportunity, Democracy, Justice, Fairness, Diversity and Inclusion.
So we get EEE — Ecology, Equality, Ethics.
3 Es — simple to remember.
When we reduce the level of abstraction, we can get extremely creative.