Amazon Loses Key Backer Four Years Into Plan To Eliminate Carbon Emissions

Four years into a plan to eliminate its carbon emissions, Amazon has lost a key endorsement from the world's leading watchdog of corporate climate goals. From a report: The Science Based Targets initiative, a United Nations-backed entity that validates net zero plans, has removed Amazon from its list of companies taking action on climate goals after the tech behemoth failed to implement its commitment to set a credible target for reducing carbon emissions. The move raises questions around Amazon's status as a preferred stock among funds marketing themselves as ESG. The world's largest ESG exchange-traded fund, which is managed by BlackRock, lists Amazon among its top three holdings. The company is also held in over 900 ESG funds registered in the European Union alone, representing about 2% of outstanding shares, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Hot. Grits.

[Iamthecheese]

ESG can go pound sand. If you really care about the environment you won't mix things up by demanding companies also demonstrate sufficiently woke policies. I'm not saying you can't demand both, I'm saying they should be completely different indices.

Re:

[PhrostyMcByte]

I'd expect an ESG index to indicate how sustainable a company is to humanity. Don't know if that is Blackrock's goal or if they're successful, but the data point alone does seem like a useful thing to track.

Nothing prevents you from tracking each metric individually as well. Feels like complaining over nothing!

Re:

[RobinH]

This isn't how the ESG market is designed to work though. The advisor sitting down to sell mutual funds to Karen the investor says "just so you know, since some of our clients are concerned with environmental and social issues when investing, we have these funds over here that only invest in companies with ESG scores over X." The fund managers go to companies and say, "I really want to invest in your oil company stock (because it's profitable) but your ESG score is too low." The oil company executives hi

Re:

[toxonix]

Purty much accurate. ESG scores are based on material risks and the the management of them. Material risks are "those risks that are recognized by management as having the potential to materially impact the [company's] business performance" ESG is just another statistic companies try to use to measure their .. packages .. against each other. ESG is a product you can buy from Blackrock or about 140 other ratings providers. None of the scores are standardized or very meaningful. An oil company can have extre

Re:

[ISayWeOnlyToBePolite]

ESG can go pound sand. If you really care about the environment you won't mix things up by demanding companies also demonstrate sufficiently woke policies. I'm not saying you can't demand both, I'm saying they should be completely different indices.

They are three different indices combined in one product as demand for the three in combo is larger than each individual indice. If you want the E only then you can get an ETF that tracks such an index such as ERTH (Invesco MSCI Sustainable Future ETF) that tracks the MSCI Global Environment Select Index. If no standard product on the market suits you then you'll need to look to the platforms that provide "custom indexing", some providers can get you anything you can screen from publicly available metrics a

Let's be honest

[larryjoe]

ESG can go pound sand. If you really care about the environment you won't mix things up by demanding companies also demonstrate sufficiently woke policies. I'm not saying you can't demand both, I'm saying they should be completely different indices.

Let's be honest. It's not the theoretical number of strategic directions that is the target of objection. It's the existence of progressive ideas. I'm not sure why the existence of funds that are available for others to invest in and for you to completely ignore would elicit so much consternation.

Aside from the use of the currently popular but lazy contentless pejorative, there is a lack of logical consistency with this sentiment. Why should there be different indices? Why should there be limits on the

ESG is garbage

[RobinH]

Social issues like hiring quotas and environmental issues like carbon emissions are orthogonal and shouldn't be grouped into the same metric. It's ridiculous that an oil company can out-score a company like Tesla just by implementing hiring quotas. I won't invest based on ESG score.

AI in direct conflict with ESG

[SuperKendall]

You can't have company carbon reduction goals in a world where every company now needs to 10x data centers for AI support.

One of them has to go, and because AI is the newer shiner thing that is pulling in investors - well ESG is right out. It had a good run.

This is recycling 2.0

[rsilvergun]

it's greenwashing. Making it look like you're doing something when you're not. Look into plastic recycling. It's a scam organized by the plastic industry to make consumers feel that they can use all the plastic they want without any consequences to them personally since "it all gets recycled anyway". It doesn't. It ends up in your food and water, and by extension you.

Ignore companies doing this stuff. Vote for politicians that will force them to clean up the environment. Just like a guy working 70+ hour

Re:

[supremebob]

Amazon is doing fine with their pronouns, mostly because implementing those policies aren't costing them much in revenue.

Switching over to electric delivery vehicles, on the other hand? That's probably going to cost them a small fortune.

Re:

[Geoffrey.landis]

Switching over to electric delivery vehicles, on the other hand? That's probably going to cost them a small fortune.

Shouldn't-- delivery vehicles are nearly the perfect niche application for electric vehicles. They don't need 300+ mile range, do stop and go runs, where the regen braking is useful, and charge at the home station overnight.

Re:

[HBI]

I'm juxtaposing this with the mornings at the local gas station, with 30 Amazon vehicles all being fueled up semi-simultaneously. The energy required to push around a battery large enough to move a decent-sized delivery van with the aerodynamics of a brick for 8 hours plus a day sounds like a challenge. And yeah, I know, things could change, but aerodynamics would cost carrying capacity and ...well you should get the picture.

Aerodynamics [Re:OH, no!]

[Geoffrey.landis]

I'm juxtaposing this with the mornings at the local gas station, with 30 Amazon vehicles all being fueled up semi-simultaneously.

Exactly. If they just plugged in to charge overnight, this traffic jam wouldn't happen.

...
The energy required to push around a battery large enough to move a decent-sized delivery van with the aerodynamics of a brick ... aerodynamics would cost carrying capacity and ..

Since aerodynamic drag is proportional to velocity squared, drag is critical for high velocity vehicles operating on highways, but less important for low velocity vehicles, like delivery vans operating on local streets.

It's all about the social license to operate.

[Petersko]

For Amazon to have that goal, well, that's nice. But what is the "actual" tangible outcome incurred from losing that endorsement?

If it results in neither restrictions by regulators nor loss of customer base, then (from Amazon's perspective), "Oh well." They're already fighting a perception of being "evil" - does not meeting a climate goal make them "more evil", and does it matter?