It’s an interesting question because many companies are now being rated by financiers with no comprehension of nature’s first principles on their compliance with ESG and other sustainability programs. In fact, sustainability does not exist anywhere in the universe, and rating companies on their compliance with sustainability, produces, amongst self-aggrandizing cheers, a pageantry of false positivity and an accelerated anthropogenic cascade to boot.
Rating companies, and more importantly, their products, can only provide meaning when held to a humanitarian thesis in compliance with nature. None of today’s companies do, for none of them have been told to improve human adaptability to nature’s entropy. Hence a rating system in which every company deserves a zero on a scale from zero to ten (best) would be a waste of everyone’s time.
You see, the improvement of human adaptability to nature’s entropy is a new vector for humanity to which all companies can migrate (over time). It attaches to a higher normalization of truth previously nonexistent as a necessary measure.
So, asking me to rate companies on that new normalization of nature’s truth is like asking Elon Musk to rate combustion-engine car companies on their reluctance to embrace a different energy source. They would all score a zero. It makes no sense to rate companies that subjugate (in the words of Albert Einstein) to the wrong thesis that determines what can be discovered.
Once governments begin to embrace nature’s first-principles and the goalposts of human adaptability to nature’s entropy have been set, only then a rating system inducing taxation levels correlated to the compliance with those principles makes sense.
I will not be joining the rating game of a flawed humanitarian game.