We have long taken a dim view of corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) programs that respond to shareholder pressure, or at least the environmental and social part. 

Most serious portfolio managers consider the wide range of annual meeting environmental and social resolutions a collosal waste of shareholder time and energy. We have far more important concerns at portfolio companies than how to vote on employment conditions, environmental sustainability, and controversial products (tobacco, coal, whatever).

If it makes business sense, companies will do the right thing. Market forces will encourage or force companies into acting responsibly. Turns out a pillar of the New York Times op-ed page agrees.

This week, Frank Bruni heaped praise on Corporate America for recent moves on selling Confederate flags, supporting lesbian and gay rights, immigration reform, use of organic raw materials, and other causes important to shareholders that promote good ESG practices. He caught hell from other liberal media (Gawker, Salon) for daring to say anything nice about big companies.

Any ESG activist should applaud what these companies have accomplished. Walmart, Eli Lilly, Starbucks, Unilever, and many others led meaningful improvements much faster and effectively than any shareholder proposal or government agency could have mandated.

He concludes, "Sometimes the bottom line matches the common good, and [companies are] the agents of what's practical, wise and even right."

As we say on occasion, wish we wrote that.

MRL