This year's Dow Jones Sustainability Index is out, and the news isn't good for Microsoft and HP – both companies were booted from the highly respected investors' guide to companies that demonstrate "Corporate Sustainability". The DJSI defines corporate sustainability as "a business approach that creates long-term shareholder …
Not exactly clear.
The DJSI is "highly respected investors' guide"? By whom, exactly?
Nextly, your headline reads: "HP, Microsoft dumped from Dow Jones 'green' list, $8 billion at risk"
However, neither HP nor MIcrosoft, separately or together, seems to be in danger of losing anywhere near that amount, as that $8bn seems to be the *total* amount invested based on the DJSI. So the headline and subtitle seem to have little to do with reality. Could ya fix it please?
Do you have any evidence that being on or being booted off of that list has any actual significant consequences, by the way?
(I am not even going to broach the question of whether "SAM Group's" ideas of "sustainability" (quite the buzzword, you know!) has any grounding in reality. Or whether their "sustainability"is meant to be good for the planet, or the people living on the planet, or just for the *wealthy* people living on the planet, at the expense of the poor people. These are all worthwhile questions, by the way.)
PS: In comparison to the amount of money invested in stocks and in businesses in general, $8bn seems like a pittance, don't you think?
I like "The Real Thing", not something that one (recently in the news) called simple sugar water.
So, Pepsi: YUCK, Coke: Ahhhh
There is no substitute for that wonderful stuff in the nice bright red cans, all 12 ounces of them.
Then one could abide by the quote: "Pardon me sir, you mistake me for someone who actually gives a damn".
Three words: "Blind Taste Test"
Its all about the branding. Just ask Apple...
From nice safe sugar, to yucky tasting cancer inducing apartame!
Quote: PepsiCo, cited for its commitment "to increase the amount of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds and low-fat dairy in its global portfolio"; and its decision "to eliminate direct sales of full-sugar soft drinks to primary and secondary schools by 2012"
And replace those with what exactly? Low sugar alternatives containing cancer causing aspartame. Still, at least that will keep the drug companies busy with a constant flow of cancer victims!
Doesn't seem like a whole lot of evidence linking aspartame and cancer, just hysteria and lousy science. But congratulations for linking it into a Beverage-Pharmaceutical Complex conspiracy.
I beg to differ...
"...In a world in which it often seems as if the only measurements that count are dollars, pounds, yen, yuan, and euros, it (sic) refreshing to see those and other monetary units being used as agents of progressive environmental and social pressure...."
It's NOT refreshing to me. Our corporate organisations are commercial bodies. Not Orwellian agents of 'social pressure' whose task is to force people to conform to some 'progressive' agenda. Have you any idea what a world would be like if governments AND industry were to combine to force people to behave in conformity to the latest environmental fad...?
Well, elect a fascist president and congress
and you get a fascist society.
Something completely lost on most people from Frisco. Or, maybe not....
Surely not a Fascist!
No , No he is a Muslim.
Some American said it, so it must be true
What about Apple?
Apple are terrible in terms of sustainability, where are they on the list? Find out quick before all their fanbois get the wrong idea and start preaching again that they are holier than MS!
Sustainability is a Crock
Sustainability is a Crock and $8,000,000,000 is peanuts the pool is 1000 times that size. Why keep doing things whose results are unsatisfactory? THAT is the true meaning of Sustainability: staying in a rut. Especially with technology globalization and investment from increased world savings making energy and resources cheaper and more abundant every day, and environmental and social costs less every day.
Except when the Popes of Green Jihad get their dirty bloody hands on levers of power, then we get chit like Ethanol: works badly as intended if at all; expensive; starves the poor, raises all grain prices and meat prices too world wide, poisons land, rivers, and the whole Gulf of Mexico.
Sustainability is NOT a crock. It has never meant staying a rut. Where did you pick up that idea?!?
Did you read the criteria that the DJSI uses to assess?
If you think it was the Green movement that got Ethanol usage to the position it is in the USA today - and on the point that diverting all that primary production to vehicle fuel is a bad idea, we are in total agreement - well, it was actually self-serving politicians. Particularly those with base in the corn growing belt, who saw it as an opportunity to lock in extra demand for the corn farmers in their area. Can't blame the Greens for this one.