You make the same mistake as the many religious priests demanding atheists to disprove the over 100 suppositions of religions.
No one should have to prove a belief in the easter-bunny as false, instead, those believing in the easter-bunny must prove the belief in the easter-bunny to be valid, especially when they want others to believe it too. The burden of proof belongs to believers.
Similarly, anyone promoting a new religion (of finance) owns the burden of proof, with the SEC as the financial regulator in the venerable position to turn down the evidence of said proof, as it already has on the merit of ESG.
ESG is an evolutionary oxymoron, for the supposition of sustainability upon which its many theories hinge is nonexistent anywhere in the universe. Hence, my response to the believers in another manmade theory of make-believe is the following:
John, your argument that the SEC needs to prove ESG is broken is a negation of the burden of proof you have to deliver that ESG is not broken. The Peirce piece (of the SEC) was remarkably lucent, from a government perspective. Anyone wanting others to believe in a new manmade religion of finance owns the burden of proof. You fall awfully short in delivering that argumentation.
Sustainability, upon which ESG hinges is nonexistent anywhere in the universe, and thus is a placebo to improving the adaptability of humanity to nature. One you can only sell to greater-fools. And a finance strategy that does not improve human adaptability, to the change nature continues to throw our way, is instead destructive to humanity.
I suggest you do better than provide he-said-she-said journalism, and actually debate the crucial validity of an arbitrage responsible for expanding the fractal of human ingenuity.