That’s a keyword of dramatic relevance from an Sri and Esg perspective: “controversial”. The reason is quite evident: any Esg analysis tries to focus mainly on the controversial aspects of a business. And on controversial sectors, as they generally consider gambling, nuclear power, armaments, alcol, tobacco, pornography, Gmo (genetically modified organism), animal testing and so on.
So, when a couple of days ago I received a press release from Covalence and Inrate announcing their strategic collaboration, my eyes first of all were catched exactly by the word “controversial”. The collaboration between the two agencies, one operating in the Esg rating area, the other in the Esg index tracking area, has in effect the goal to go deep in the regular monitoring and research on controversial issues, such as human rights violations or food scandals.
I’d like to know just one more thing about this controversial issues monitoring activity, that I consider for sure of enormous value and so delicate to be performed (and with high-skilled people required, also). I’d like to know which role the info spreaded through the social media have, with my mind going in particular to Twitter (that’s actually an info media, to be honest, not a social media, the experts say), in affecting the Esg assessment of the issues.
I think Esg analysis and Sri investing as a consequence are more and more influenced by the voice of social media. Am I right?